Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2672 of 2019 Petitioner :- Gore Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Called in revise. None appeared for petitioners to press this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel is present for respondents. In the circumstances, we ourselves have perused the record.
2. It is evident from record that a work contract was executed on 29.05.2006 and was completed in the same year. Now, in 2018 Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Kanpur Dehat has issued a letter dated 14.09.2018 directing petitioner to deposit Rs.2,40,860/- towards alleged deficit of royalty amount in view of audit objection raised in audit. Thereafter recovery citation has been issued by Tehsildar on 4.10.2018 for recovery of said amount as arrears of land revenue.
3. It is pleaded that impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or opportunity, as is evident from paras 13 and 14 of writ petition, which despite opportunity to respondents have not been denied by filing counter affidavit. Even from perusal of order it reveals that recovery has been sought from petitioner without any show cause notice and opportunity and that too after more than twelve years.
4. It is well settled that no order adverse to interest of any person ought to have been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. It cannot be disputed that the impugned order has affected petitioner's civil rights and the same has been done in utter violation of principles of natural justice. In State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapanni Dei and others 1967 AIR 1269, the Apex Court said:
"It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an 2 administrative order which involves civil consequences as already stated must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. No such steps were admittedly taken; the High Court was, in our judgment, right in setting aside the order of the State."
5. The Apex Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & others AIR 1994 SC 2480, has held that “fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter.”
6. In view thereof, writ petition is allowed. Impugned recovery notice dated 14.09.2018 as well as recovery citation dated 04.10.2018 are hereby set aside.
7. However, this order shall not preclude respondents from passing a fresh order in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 KA