Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Onkar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:44660) on 10 October, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:44660]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18231/2019
Onkar Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh, Aged About 57 Years, B/c
Rajput, R/o Chak 23 Stg, Po Dulmana, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat.
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Gharsana, District
Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JS Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
10/10/2025
1. Learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved
in this case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11560/2019 "Hari Kishan Sharma Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors." decided on 22.07.2020. The same is being
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"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.
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 12:56:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44660] (2 of 3) [CW-18231/2019]
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 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. Bissa, 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 01.07.2019 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."
2. Thus, the instant petition is allowed in the same terms as the
controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the case
referred supra. The impugned order dated 08.11.2019 (Annexure-
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 12:56:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44660] (3 of 3) [CW-18231/2019]
6) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent shall be free
to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in
accordance with the provision of law and rules prevailing in the
matter.
3. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
21-divya/-
(Uploaded on 15/10/2025 at 12:56:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
