Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1529 of 2000 Petitioner :- A.P. Singh Respondent :- The Commissioner Food And Civil Supplies And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Srivastava,A.K. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.
By the impugned order dated 04.9.1999, the respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to make certain recovery from the salary of certain employees of the respondents in the capacity of Marketing Inspector of the Department.
By the consequential order dated 21.9.1999, the recovery of Rs. 600102.24 was ordered against the petitioner, which was the amount, he was required to recover from the employees of the respondent in pursuance of the order dated 04.9.1999. By the interim order dated 12.01.2000, the effect and operation of both the impugned orders was stayed by this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of recovery has been passed against the petitioner without any opportunity of hearing and such recovery was earlier also directed against the petitioner which he challenged by way of Writ Petition No. No. 749 of 1997 and such recovery was stayed by the interim order dated 10.01.1997 by this Court. After the stay of earlier recovery, same amount was included in the impugned order dated 21.9.1999 and fresh recovery order was passed against the petitioner which he challenged by way of this writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that the petitioner was required to recover the amount which he failed to do and, therefore, recovery was directed to be made from him. The recovery is regarding the public money and, therefore it cannot be faulted with.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that there was allegation of negligence of duty in making recovery of certain amounts from the salaries of employees of the respondent.
In such a situation, the petitioner was required to be noticed for negligence in performance of his official duties and after hearing him, the respondents were required to take decision in accordance with the law. The respondents clearly violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India and passed the orders of recovery from petitioner, the amount which was due against certain other employees of the respondents, which cannot be permitted under the law.
In view above factual and legal position, the impugned orders dated 04.9.1999 and 21.9.1999 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively are hereby quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.2.2018 Ruchi Agrahari