Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17673 of 2021 Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State.
2. By means of the present petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.11.2021 but at this stages he presses the prayer with regard to challenge to the order dated 12th August, 2021 whereby upon the preliminary inquiry the petitioner has been found to be guilty and recovery has been ordered from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner does not press his prayer for challenging the order dated 12.8.2021 and accordingly his prayer is accepted.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Village Development Officer at Block Kisni, District Mainpuri and on 12.8.2021 he was served with the order whereby he was required to deposit an amount of Rs.4,09,482/- in the account of Village Fund Account of Village Panchayat Saman, Block Kisni, District Mainpuri. Impugned order dated 11.11.2021 has been passed by District Development Officer, Mainpuri for recovery of Rs.11,65,888/- and it is provided that the said amount will be deducted from the salary of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month.
4. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner prior to passing the order dated 11.11.2021 nor was he put to notice or confronted with the allegations prior to passing of the said order. It has been submitted that, in fact, there was certain allegation against the Pradhan for which an inquiry was instituted and notice was served upon the Pradhan and after receiving his reply order dated 12th August, 2021 was passed where in a most illegal and arbitrary manner it was found that the petitioner was involved in misappropriation of fund. Petitioner submits that the said order cannot be taken cognizance of in as much as he was not put to any notice nor was he asked to submit reply in regard to the allegations. It is only after finding the recording in the order dated 12.8.2021, a preliminary inquiry was instituted against the petitioner and the impugned order dated 11.11.2021 has been passed. He submits that after the preliminary inquiry it was mandatory for the respondents to have held regular inquiry and after giving notice and due opportunity to the petitioner wherein all the charges could have been replied suitably and only thereafter recovery order could have been passed if he was found guilty.
5. The manner in which the proceedings have been carried out against the petitioner is contrary and alien to the rules of natural justice and equality and consequently the order is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
6. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order and submits that there are serious allegations of misappropriation of fund and consequently there is no illegality in passing of the impugned order but admits that in the entire order there is no mention that any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.
7. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.
8. After hearing to the parties' counsel and from perusal of the order it is evident that a preliminary inquiry was conducted under Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Inquiry Rules, 1997 and it was discovered that an amount of Rs.11,65,888/- have been misappropriated for which the recovery is being made. There is no mention in the impugned order as to in what manner and as to how the said misappropriation took place and how the petitioner is responsible for the same but recovery has been ordered to be made from salary of the petitioner. A perusal of the order dated 11.11.2021 clearly indicates that it suffers from non-application of mind where no matterial is available with the respondents or the same having been considered or recorded prior to holding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation and ordering for recovery and also considering the fact that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner, the order impugned is illegal and arbitrary and is hereby quashed.
9. In view of above, the respondent No.3 is directed to conduct proper inquiry in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously and conclude the inquiry within a maximum period of six months from the date a copy of this order is placed before him. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the inquiry.
10. The writ petition thus stands allowed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 (Alok Mathur, J.) RKM.