Allahabad High Court
Ram Dutt vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors on 25 September, 2014
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52513 of 2014
Petitioner :- Ram Dutt
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Samir Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State.
The petitioner was engaged as seasonal collection Peon in the year 1992. His services were terminated in the year 1992. He approached this court by means of WP No. 14904 of 1992 wherein an interim order was passed on 25.4.1992, which is as under.
"Standing counsel has accepted notices on behalf of the respondents. He is allowed 6 weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner will have 3 weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter for admission.
Meanwhile if there is existing vacancy and person, who were appointed after the appointment of the petitioner's continuance in service may be considered and the petitioner will also be paid salary as per rules. The operation of the impugned order dated 28.3.92 and 26.3.92 (Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed only to the extent that the authorities, if they are intending to make any appointment on the post, on which the petitioner was working are restrained to do so."
The petitioner was reinstated in service by the respondents after passing of the aforesaid order and he continued to work as Collection Peon. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 1.12.2009. The petitioner claims that he did not receive any information from his counsel about dismissal of the writ petition. It appears that the respondents herein also did not come to know about the factum of dismissal of the said writ petition. The petitioner, therefore, continued to work as collection peon without any hindrance from the respondents herein. The aforesaid fact came into the knowledge of the respondents accordingly and order dated 9.7.2014 was passed by the Addl. District Magistrate ( F & R), Moradabad ordering a recovery of Rs. 6,51,650/- (Rs. Six Lakhs fifty one thousand six hundred and fifty) from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue on the ground that he has concealed the fact of dismissal of his writ petition and continued to work illegally.
The contention of Sri Sharma is that the petitioner did not receive any information from his counsel about the dismissal of the writ petition, even respondents never informed him about the dismissal of the writ petition. The continuance of the petitioner in service is bona fide action on his part and even the respondents allowed him to continue obviously because they did not know about the aforesaid facts.
It is further contended that it is only on 1.8.2014 while the petitioner was undergoing treatment of Tuberculosis and Typhoid in hospital, he was informed at his in-laws place that an order of recovery has been passed against him.
Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that after the dismissal of the writ petition on 1.12.2009, the petitioner was not entitled to work, but he continued to do so illegally.
Sri Sharma also pointed out that neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
Having heard counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such unilateral action in the matter by the respondents does not appear to be justified.
Admittedly, the respondents were also not aware of the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition of the petitioner. It is possible that the petitioner may also not have been aware unless it is proved to the contrary. Issuance of an order of recovery of Rs. 6,51,650/- (Rs. Six Lakhs fifty one thousand six hundred and fifty) without conducting any inquiry in the matter to ascertain as to whether the petitioner actually had knowledge of the aforesaid facts and whether the concerned employees/officers also had knowledge of the same or not, it does not appear to be fair to pass an order of recovery of such a huge amount.
The facts remain that the petitioner had worked for which he has been paid salary . Unless it is found that when he had information about the fact, the recovery would not be justified.
In view of the discussion above, the impugned order dated 9.7.2014 on the face of it is erroneous and cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. However, the respondents are directed to institute an inquiry in the matter in the light of the observations made herein above and take appropriate decision based on the result of such inquiry after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. The said exercise shall be completed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad (Respondent no. 1) within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before him.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 25.9.2014
SKS
