Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38528 of 2018 Petitioner :- Lakshmina Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Srivastava,Rakesh Pande Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.9.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to judgement of this Court dated 1.11.2018 passed in Writ A No. 22445 of 2018 (Nagendra Pratap Narain Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others). Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:-
"Accordingly, this writ petition shall stand allowed. The order dated 19 September 2018 is hereby quashed. It is further provided that in case the Chief Audit Officer forms the opinion that circumstances warrant initiation of fresh proceedings under Section 27 against the petitioners, he shall proceed in the matter only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners including inviting their representations in respect of initiation of proceedings itself since it is contended on their behalf that on identical charges they already stand exonerated and therefore the provisions of Section 27 cannot be invoked."
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid petition was filed against the same impugned order dated 19.9.2018, which was passed against three persons and in respect of two other persons order has been quashed by the abovequoted order. Submission is that present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Submission is that it is not in dispute that the charges were not found proved and they were also exonerated in departmental proceedings. Submission is that under such circumstances the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel tried to support the impugned order, however, could not dispute the aforesaid legal position.
On perusal of record I find that in the aforesaid order an observation has been made that in case the Chief Audit Officer forms the opinion that circumstances warrant initiation of fresh proceedings under Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, he shall proceed in the matter only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
In such view of the matter, the benefit of the aforesaid judgment is also extended to the petitioner.
Without going into further details or arguments, the impugned order dated 19.9.2018 is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned, however, with liberty to the authority concerned as extended by this Court in the abovequoted judgment dated 1.11.2018.
With the aforesaid observation, present petition is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Lalit Shukla