Bhoop Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2740 Raj

[2023/RJJD/008872]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11149/2019

Bhoop Singh S/o Shri Munsi Ram, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Gram Post Chaani Badi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh.

3. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Deepak Pareek
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. K.K. Bissa



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

05/04/2023

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 01.07.2019 vide which the respondent

No.2 has sought to recover a sum of Rs.4,81,213/- from him.

2. Mr. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is a Government servant and his services are

governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules and, thus, no recovery

can be made unless an inquiry has been conducted, in accordance

with law.

3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner relies upon Division Bench judgment dated 03.11.2016,

rendered in Hanuman Swami Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (D.B.

[2023/RJJD/008872] (2 of 2) [CW-11149/2019]

Civil Special Appeal(W) No.1439/2014) and a Co-ordinate

Bench decision dated 17.01.2019, in Suresh Kumar Vs. The

State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3048/2018).

4. Mr. Bissa, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a

position to dispute aforesaid position of facts and law. He,

however, submits that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation

of Govt. funds and, thus, the respondents are entitled to recover

the amount in question.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court

is of the view that recovery, sought to be made by the respondent

No.2, is illegal and without jurisdiction in absence of an inquiry

under the CCA Rules conducted against the petitioner.

6. Following the Division Bench judgment in Hanuman Swami

(supra) and Suresh Kumar (supra), the present petition is allowed.

7. The impugned order dated 01.07.2019 is quashed and set

aside.

8. The respondents, shall however be free to initiate

appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, in accordance with

law.

9. No order as to costs.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 139-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)