Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pala Ram Barothiya vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023/RJJD/015105]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11541/2019
Pala Ram Barothiya S/o Shri Lal Chand, Aged About 41 Years, By
Caste Barothiya, R/o Village Nethrana At Present R/o Ward No.
05, Hathipura Bass, Bhadra, 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
Mr. J.S.Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S.Chouhan for
Mr. K.K.Bissa
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
15/05/2023
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.4,98,150/- 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 Civil Service Rules and, thus, no
recovery can be made unless an inquiry has been conducted, in
accordance with law.
[2023/RJJD/015105] (2 of 3) [CW-11541/2019]
3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relies upon Division Bench's judgment dated 03.11.2016
rendered in the case of Hanuman Swami Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
(D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.1439/2014) and a Co-ordinate
Bench's decision dated 17.01.2019, in the case of Suresh Kumar
Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3048/2018), passed in light thereof.
4. Mr. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a
position to dispute the 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. It is informed that the respondents have already initiated
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and an order dated
24.05.2021 has been passed imposing punishment of stoppage of
two annual grade increments without cumulative effect.
7. Following the Division Bench judgment in Hanuman Swami
(supra) and the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench in the
case of Suresh Kumar (supra), the present petition is allowed.
8. The impugned order dated 01.07.2019 is quashed and set
aside.
[2023/RJJD/015105] (3 of 3) [CW-11541/2019]
9. The petitioner's right to challenge the order aforesaid dated
24.05.2021 shall not be prejudiced by the disposal of the present
writ petition.
10. No order as to costs.
11. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
53-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
