Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 15582 Raj
Judgement Date : 17 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:49535]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7599/2025
Parmeshwar Lal S/o Shri Ramjas Dukiya, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of Village Firojpura, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti
Mundwa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JS Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. IR Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/11/2025
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 21.03.2025 vide which the respondent
No.2 has sought to recover a sum of Rs.2,93,481/- from him.
2. Mr. Bhaleria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 01:01:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49535] (2 of 2) [CW-7599/2025]
in Hanuman Swami Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (D.B. Civil 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. Choudhary, 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 order dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure-6) is 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.
(FARJAND ALI),J 37-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 01:01:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!