Rajasthan High Court
Sualal S/O Shri Gandi Lal Mali vs State Of Rajasthan Through Chief ... on 23 November, 2021
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17993/2018
Sualal S/o Shri Gandi Lal Mali, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of
Plot No. 220, Krishi Nagar Extension, Vatika Road, Sanganer,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Chief Engineer, Public Health
Engineering Department (PHED), Jal Bhawan, Civil Lines,
Jaipur.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering
Department (PHED), Sub Division I (South), Jawahar
Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saksena
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, AGC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
23/11/2021
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with
the averment that he has been working on the post of Helper with
respondent No.1-Public Health Engineering Department (PHED)
and he has been served with order dated 31.05.2018 vide which
he has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 17,47,580/-.
Such order is said to be based on some reports of Special Enquiry
Committee. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated
31.05.2018 on the ground that before issuance of same, no
opportunity of hearing was ever granted to him and the copy of
the so-called inquiry report on the basis of which this recovery has
been ordered to be made has also not been served on him. The
(2 of 3) [CW-17993/2018]
petitioner has thus complained of violation of principle of natural
justice and has also prayed for an opportunity of hearing which he
was denied by the Authorities.
The reply to the writ petition has been filed by the
respondents with the submissions that several notices were served
on the petitioner vide letter No. 213 dated 31.05.2018,
19.06.2018, 25.06.2018 and notices to show cause dated
26.06.2018 and 13.10.2018. It has also been averred that in
response to the notices served on the petitioner, he demanded
copy of Article 8 vide his letter dated 13.07.2018 and the same
was immediately provided to him by the Department. The
respondent further therefore averred that the recovery sought to
be made by Department is perfectly justified.
In support of the statements. Counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in SB Civil Writ
Petition No. 482/1986; (Mahendra Kumar Surana Vs. The
Rajasthan State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water
Pollution and another) decided on 26.11.1996.
Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
It is clear on record that no notice as alleged by the
respondent-Department had been served on the petitioner before
the recovery notice dated 31.05.2018. No notice was served
even by the Inquiry Committee before conducting the enquiry or
submitting the enquiry report. The notices, as mentioned by the
respondents in their reply, are the notices simplicitor demanding
the recovery amount to be deposited by the petitioner and none of
the notice is of a date prior to 31.05.2018.
(3 of 3) [CW-17993/2018]
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that
neither any opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner by the
Enquiry Committee before submitting its so-called enquiry report
nor was any show cause notice issued before passing of order
dated 31.05.2018. It is thus a clear case of violation of principles
of natural justice as held by this Court in Mahendra Kumar's
(supra) case:-
"A preliminary enquiry in no circumstances can be made sole
basis for imposing any punishment or even recovery of
amount until and unless proper enquiry is held and the
delinquent officer is given full opportunity to defend himself".
In view of the above facts, the order dated 31.05.2018
(Annexure-1) is quashed. The petitioner is directed to file a
representation before the respondent-Department within a period
of one month and the respondent-Department is directed to pass
a fresh order on the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. Till a final order is passed by the Department on the
representation of the petitioner, Department would be restrained
from making any recovery from the petitioner in pursuance to the
order dated 31.05.2018.
With these observations, the present writ petition is disposed
of.
Any application, if pending, also stands disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
ashu/15
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
