Dalip Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7235 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29624]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11134/2019

Dalip Singh S/o Shri Chaynan Mal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Dungrana, 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. Praveen Karwa for
                                  Mr. J.S.Bhaleria
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. K.K.Bissa



                        JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                       Order

14/09/2023

1. The application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of

India has been preferred by the respondents for vacating ex-parte

interim order dated 25.07.2019 passed by this Court.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

being aggrieved with the order dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure-P/9)

whereby, the respondents have sought to recover certain

amount(s) from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondents have proceeded for recovery of the amount from the

petitioner without conducting any inquiry.

[2023:RJ-JD:29624] (2 of 2) [CW-11134/2019]

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by

the judgment dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Division Bench of

this Court in DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1439/2014 :

Hanuman Swami vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., wherein the

Division Bench has quashed and set aside the recovery order while

granting liberty to the respondents to proceed against the

appellant-petitioner therein, in accordance with the prescribed

Rules.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

6. In such circumstance, the writ petition is allowed and the

impugned recovery order dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure-P/9) is

quashed and set aside.

7. The respondents shall, however, be free to proceed against

the petitioner for recovery of the amount under the relevant

service Rules, while granting opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

8. The application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of

India so also stay application stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 43-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)