Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jitendra Singh Sisodiya vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 July, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:29532]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10271/2020
Jitendra Singh Sisodiya S/o Shri Chhater Singh, Aged About 60
Years, R/o Mukam Dadodiya, Post Chhaila Kherwara, Dungarpur,
District Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Project Coordinator (Mgnrega) Cum District
Collector, Dungarpur, District Dungarpur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer Cum Additional District Project
Coordinator, (Egs), Zila Parishad Dungarpur.
4. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Dungarpur, District
Dungarpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JS Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
08/07/2025
1. Grievance of the petitioner herein, inter-alia, is against the
impugned order dated 26.08.2020 (Annex.P/6), whereby,
allegedly without conducting the departmental inquiry as per Rule
14 of the Rules of 1958, an amount of Rs.63,900/- and
Rs.68,500/- have been sought to be recovered from him.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner points
out that the impugned order causing recovery against the
petitioner has been passed without either issuing any prior show
cause notice or otherwise granting any opportunity of hearing or
[2025:RJ-JD:29532] (2 of 3) [CW-10271/2020]
conducting any inquiry whatsoever to ascertain the alleged loss
caused to the department.
3. He submits that petitioner is governed by Rajasthan Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and in
accordance thereof, no recovery can be caused against the
government official without following the procedure as prescribed
therein.
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relies on the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Hari Kishan Sharma Vs. State of Raj.
& Ors.: S.B.C.W.P. No.11560/2019, decided on 22.07.2020.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on a Court
query, does not dispute that no inquiry was conducted against the
petitioner before passing of the impugned order. He would
however, urge that in cases of loss caused to the government or
misappropriation or embezzlement, the department is entitled to
recover the same from the delinquent employee.
6. In principal, I am in agreement with the arguments
canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent but such a
recovery, if at all is to be caused, is also governed by the Rules of
procedure. Administrative orders cannot be arbitrarily passed, that
too, in violation of principle of natural justice, without granting any
opportunity to the delinquent employee to present his case.
7. Neither was the petitioner afforded any opportunity nor
otherwise also any finding is recorded qua his alleged delinquency
nor is it a case, where the department has even endeavored to
conduct an inquiry by following the due procedure under the CCA
Rules ibid.
[2025:RJ-JD:29532] (3 of 3) [CW-10271/2020]
8. In the premise, having heard the learned counsels
representing the respective parties, I am of the view that the
impugned order dated 26.08.2020 is not sustainable.
9. As an upshot, the petition has to be necessarily allowed. The
impugned order dated 26.08.2020 (Annex.P/6) is set aside with
liberty to the department to initiate appropriate proceedings, if it
so wishes in accordance with law.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
74-nitin/c-11/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
