Kharati Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3484 Raj

[2023/RJJD/011593]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10057/2019

Kharati Lal S/o Shri Tek Chand, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Taneja, R/o Setia Farm, Gali No. 12, Sri Ganganagar (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 Sri Ganganagar.

3. The Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar

4. The Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Zone, Bikaner.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Deepak Pareek for
                                Mr. JS Bhaleria
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Manish Tak



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

24/04/2023

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

challenged the orders dated 24.11.2018 and 22.04.2019 vide

which the respondent No.2 has sought to recover a sum of

Rs.11,29,056/- and Rs.22,820/- from him.

2. Mr. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 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. Civil

[2023/RJJD/011593] (2 of 2) [CW-10057/2019]

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), passed in light

thereof.

4. Mr. Tak, 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 orders dated 24.11.2018 and 22.04.2019 are

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.

10. All the interlocutory applications including application under

Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India so also the stay

application stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 26-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)