Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18484 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vinay Pratap Singh
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
By means of the impugned order the respondents propose to recover dues representing alleged excess monetary benefits released in favour of the petitioner upon being extended Assured Career Progression benefits. The order is assailed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order. This position is not disputed by the State respondent. Learned counsel has additionally drawn attention of the Court to a similar controversy which fell for consideration before a learned Judge in Brajesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others [Writ -A No. 13355 of 2020, decided on 05 January 2021], where after noticing the rival submissions the learned Judge observed thus:-
"It is stated that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and that determination of petitioner's salary is otherwise incorrect on facts.
Although petition is opposed by learned Standing Counsel but it is admitted from the instructions obtained by learned Standing Counsel that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the order impugned.
Order for unilaterally reducing petitioner's salary after expiry of 12 years without any opportunity and the direction to recover alleged excess amount is clearly an order carrying civil consequences, which cannot be passed except after affording opportunity of hearing and confronting the materials relied upon. Order impugned is thus found to be violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed. Orders impugned dated 5.2.2020 and 21.8.2020 are quashed. It shall, however, be open for the authority concerned to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to re-determine the issue by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334."
Before this Court, it is not disputed by the respondents that the order impugned would visit the petitioner with serious civil consequences and that consequently it was incumbent to afford him an opportunity to represent against the proposed action. In view of the aforesaid it was submitted that the ends of justice would warrant the impugned order being set aside leaving it open to the respondents to proceed in the matter afresh.
Accordingly and with the consent of parties, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.11.2021 and 10.08.2021, are quashed and set aside. This order however shall not preclude the respondents from considering the issue afresh. In case the respondents do so they shall ensure that the petitioner is afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing before passing of any adverse orders.
Order Date :- 24.12.2021 Pramod Tripathi