Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KALIKA PRATAP KUREEL versus THE COLLECTOR FARRUKHABAD AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kalika Pratap Kureel v. The Collector Farrukhabad And Others - WRIT - A No. 16157 of 1988 [2006] RD-AH 9315 (10 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.37

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.16157 of 1988

Kalika Prasad Kureel  

Vs.

The Collector, Farrukhabad   and others

Hon.R.K.Agrawal,J.

Hon.Sanjay Misra, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.5.1988 passed by District Development  Officer, Farrukhabad, respondent no.2 (annexure-5 to the writ petition) as also the order dated 20.5.1988 passed by the Collector, Farrukhabad, respondent no.1( annexure-6 to the writ petition).

By means of order dated 20.5.1988, the Collector, Farrukhabad had directed for recovery of Rs.50,598.40 from the petitioner as he has been found to have spent the said amount in excess. Vide order dated 23.5.1988 the District Development Officer, Farrukhabad had sent the copy of the order dated 20.5.1988 for compliance. According to the petitioner, he was working as Block Development Officer and during the course of his positing  at various blocks in district Farrukhabad there was an order of implementation of the scheme sponsored by the Government of Uttar Pradesh providing  residential  houses to landless agricultural labourers belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes namely Gramin Bhumihin Rojgar Gaurantee

-2-

Karyakram ke Antargat Awasiya Bhasano ke Nirman Hetu Nirdeshika.  The directory contains the details of map for the construction of the houses and the amount to be spent. The petitioner who retired on 29.2.1988 did not face any departmental enquiry during his career and an enquiry was initiated against him after his retirement and impugned order dated 20.5.1998 was passed for the recovery of Rs.50,598.40 against the petitioner.

Apart from the various grounds taken in the writ petition the submission is that the order directing for recovery of alleged excess expenditure has been passed  without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Specific averments has been made in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ petition which are as under:-

"14. That it is most respectfully submitted that prior to the issuance of the aforesaid orders dated 20th May, 1988 by respondent no.1, as well as the letter dated 23rd May 1988 by the respondent no.2, the petitioner was not given any show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing in the matter. The petitioner was also not given any opportunity to show cause as against the alleged inspection report by Up Awas Ayukt, Uttar Pradesh, Gramin Awas Parishad, Lucknow nor was be ever supplied a copy of the said report.

15. That it is also relevant to state here that on the basis of the alleged inspection report of Sri P.N.Batham, Up Awas Ayukta, Gramin Awas Parishad, Lucknow no departmental proceedings were

-3-

initiated against the petitioner, nor the petitoner was given any opportunity of hearing into the matter."

In the counter affidavit filed by Sri V.N.Garg, District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, respondent no.1 the averments made in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ petition regarding show cause notice or opportunity of hearing has been denied. The averments made in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the writ petition have been dealt with in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit to the following effect:-

"5.That in reply to para 14 of the writ petition, it is stated that  the petitioner during his tenure in the office committed illegality and irregularity in releasing the amount for construction of Indira Awas at Kannauj block district Farrukhabad and acted against the direction issued by the government. The petitioner  disregarded  all the directions for releasing the amount for the construction and became  guilty of the same.

6. That in reply to para 15 of the writ petition, it is stated that Sri P.N.Batham, the Divisional Commissioner U.P.Gramin Awas Vikas Parishad in his inspection reporting the year 1985-86 and 1986-87 suggested for enquiry in the matter. Sri Batham was complained  by a number of persons during the course of inspection."

From the reading of aforesaid  averments  it is clear that  neither show cause notice nor opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before determining the  amount of alleged expenditure  or directing  for the recovery of the alleged amount from the petitioner. No doubt the Government of Uttar Pradesh is empowered to recover the

-4-

loss  caused to it even after the retirement of the employee  but the principle of natural justice has not been followed which ought to have been followed. In the present case neither show cause notice nor opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 20.5.1988 passed  the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad  cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. However, it is open to it to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after issuing show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.  The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be taken into consideration by the authority concerned after the fresh order which may be passed by the Collector, Farrukhabad. The Collector, Farrukhabad shall take a final decision in the matter within three months from the date  a certified copy of this order is produced before it.

The writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed.

10.5.06

Gc.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.