Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17533 of 2019 Petitioner :- Gaurav Kumar Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Rana,Amit Krishna Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner, who is working as Technical Assistant of Gram Panchayat Panwari, Block Gunnaur, Distt. Sambhal is before this Court assailing the impugned recovery order dated 26.9.2019 passed by second respondent and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Technical Assistant in his respective Gram Panchayat.
Shri Amit Kirshna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Technical Assistant and his services are governed under Chapter V of of Gram Panchayat and Nyay Panchayat Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. In the present matter against certain financial irregularities proceeding has been drawn against the Pradhan. Consequently, his financial and administrative powers were seized. Against the same he preferred Writ Petition No.16810 of 2019 (Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which was disposed of on 16.5.2019 directing the District Magistrate, Sambhal to conclude the enquiry against the Pradhan within one month. In this backdrop, it is submitted that enquiry has been contemplated only against Gram Pradhan and not against Technical Assistant i.e. the petitioner. In that enquiry show cause notice was given to the petitioner to which he has submitted detailed reply but without considering the said objection the order impugned has been passed considering only the reply given by the Pradhan. The enquiry has not been contemplated against him as per the Rules and as such financial liability could not be fastened on the petitioner, which would have civil consequence. Under the relevant Rules full fledged mechanism is provided to initiate enquiry and as such the said punishment in the form of recovery cannot be inflicted upon the petitioner.
So far as factual situation is concerned, nothing has been indicated by learned Standing Counsel that any procedure has been adopted in the matter in the light of the relevant Rules. Merely on the basis of show cause notice, which was given to the Pradhan, notice has been given to the petitioner and on the basis of same it cannot be presumed that full fledged mechanism is adopted by the competent authority while passing the order impugned against the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the order impugned is hit by principle of natural justice. Once exhaustive procedure is given, then definitely the authority has to adhere said Rules and only thereafter the financial liability can be fastened upon the petitioner.
In view of above, the writ petition stands allowed. The order impugned so far as it relates to the petitioner is set aside. However, this order would not come in the way of the respondents, in case they take decision to initiate enquiry against the petitioner in consonance with the relevant Rules and Regulations.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 SP/