Mohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8462 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 8462 Raj
Judgement Date : 12 October, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 12 October, 2023

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:34628]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1154/2020

Mohan Lal S/o Shri Hema Ram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of Village- Sulkhaniya, Tehsil- Ratangarh, District- Churu (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Additional Director, Local Audit Department, Regional Office, Bikaner.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.

4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti - Ratangarh, District- Churu.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh for Mr. Shambhoo Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Tak, Dy. GA

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

12/10/2023

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner

under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming for

the following reliefs:-

"(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned recovery notice dated 29.7.2019 (Annex.17) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the ex-parte enquiry initiated against the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to make re-audit of the non-producing bills/vouchers which has not been produced at the time of audit and copy of the same has been submitted by the petitioner to the respondents."

[2023:RJ-JD:34628] (2 of 3) [CW-1154/2020]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue

involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision

rendered in the case of Har Govind Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors., passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13949/2015 and other connected matters. Relevant portion of

the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

"17. For the aforementioned reasons, the demands created against the petitioners, on the basis of the inquiry conducted in their back, without giving them an opportunity of hearing, deserve to be quashed.

18. In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The impugned demands created against the petitioners by the respondents are quashed. The matter shall stand remanded to the competent authority to pass an appropriate order afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law. The amount already deposited by the petitioners against the demands created, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court or otherwise, shall be subject to final outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the competent authority. If the petitioners are held liable for the loss, if any, caused to the Panchayati Raj Institution, the amount already deposited by them, shall be adjusted against the demand created, if any. Needless to say that if the petitioners are exonerated, the amount, if any, deposited by them or where the demand created against them is found to be less than the amount already deposited by them, the excess amount, shall be refunded to them. No order as to costs."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to

refute the same.

4. The present writ petition has been preferred by the

petitioner giving challenge to impugned notice 29.7.2019

(Annex.17) issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,

Ratangarh and it has further been submitted that the said order

[2023:RJ-JD:34628] (3 of 3) [CW-1154/2020]

has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner.

5. As a result, the impugned impugned notice 29.7.2019

(Annex.17) issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti,

Ratangarh is quashed and set aside.