Allahabad High Court
Rahul Arya vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4989 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rahul Arya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Mishra,C.K.Parekh(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri C.K. Parekh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 25.2.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar, whereby an amount of Rs.1,95,723/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar controversy has earlier been raised before this Court in Writ-A No.2217 of 2021 (Lata Rajput v. State of U.P. & Ors.) in which the Court has accorded indulgence on 10.02.2021 and as such, it is submitted that similar indulgence may also be accorded in this writ petition. For ready reference, the order dated 10.02.2021 is quoted as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner who is the Gram Vikas Adhikari challenges the order of 10 December 2020 in terms of which alleged loss caused to the State exchequer is sought to be recovered on monthly basis from the salary and other emoluments payable to the petitioner.
Before this Court it is conceded by learned Standing Counsel that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the order impugned even otherwise would not sustain in light of the judgment rendered by the Court in Uday Pratap Singh @ Harikesh Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others [2019 (10) ADJ 443] and in terms of which the District Development Officer would have no jurisdiction to take action under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 1947. Additionally, it was submitted that the relevant disciplinary rules would have to be adhered to in case a punishment of recovery of loss caused is to be imposed. The legal submissions as noted above were not disputed on behalf of the State respondents. In view of the conceded position it is manifest that the impugned order cannot sustain.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10 December 2020 is quashed. However, it is left open to the respondent to proceed in the matter and take a decision afresh bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove. All contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open."
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 10.02.2021 passed in Writ-A No.2218 of 2021 (Vishal Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors.).
So far as legal and factual aspect is concerned, the same could not be disputed by learned Standing Counsel.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. However, it is left open to the respondent to proceed in the matter and take a decision afresh bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove. All contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021
RKP
