High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kalika Pratap Kureel v. The Collector Farrukhabad And Others - WRIT - A No. 16157 of 1988  RD-AH 9315 (10 May 2006)
Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.16157 of 1988
Kalika Prasad Kureel
The Collector, Farrukhabad and others
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
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
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
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.