Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Awadhesh Narain Misshra v. U.P. State Food And Essential Commidities & Another - WRIT - A No. 38354 of 1997 [2006] RD-AH 9163 (9 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).


Court No.37

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.38354 of 1997

Awadhesh Narain Mishra  


U.P.State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation and another


Hon.Sanjay Misra, J.

( Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.)

Inspite of notice having been served and time granted, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.8.1997( annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby recovery of a sum of Rs.9978/- has been ordered tobe made from the salary of the  petitioner.

It is the case of the petitioner that during the relevant period i.e. April 1993 to March 1994, the petitioner was not posted at Mirzapur. The petitioner was posted as District Incharge Officer of the respondent corporation in district Mirzapur by an order dated 3.6.1994. It is contended that one Sri Rajeshwar Singh was handling and Transport  Contractor of the Corporation in district Mirzapur during the year 1993-94 and 1994-95. When the  petitioner took over charge as District Incharge Officer of district Mirzapur in June 1994 he found that the said Rajeshwar Singh contractor had not deposited a sum of Rs.24995.20 which was the cost of 1075 empty bags. It is contended that the contractor had not returned the bags as provided in the agreement nor had deposited its cost, therefore, the petitioner  in his official capacity issued show cause notice dated 19.8.1994 to the said contractor. No reply was received hence by an order dated 2.9.1994 the petitioner passed an order for deducting the said amount  from the security money and earnest money of the said contractor. An order dated 11.6.1995 was also passed by the head office blacklisting


the said contractor. It is the case of the petitoner that upon a representation made by the contractor before respondent no.1 certain queries were required to be answered  which were  answered by letter dated 28.7.1997 of the  the District Incharge who brought the entire facts to the notice of the respondents stating that during the relevant period the bags were not recovered from the contractor  by Raj Pal Singh, District Manager and Dhansu Ram and Sri Maharani Deen Yadav who were godown incharge.  The resultant loss to the Corporation was attributed to the said persons and not to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner had appeared on 8.10.1996 along with the files before the Chief General Manager and had brought the correct facts to his notice. However, it is stated that without any opportunity of hearing the impugned order for recovery has been passed against the petitioner also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the amount has been recovered from the contractor by the petitioner there was no occasion to make the recovery of the same from the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the impugned order when his salary was being deducted for the month of August 1997.

Since no counter affidavit has been filed, the averments of the petitioner made in the writ petition that the alleged amount had already been recovered from the contractor has gone uncontroverted. Under such circumstances the amount which has already been recovered from the contractor cannot be re-recovered from the petitioner. Moreover, from the perusal of the impugned order it is quite clear that the explanation given by the petitioner on 8.10.1996 and 16.6.1997 has not at all been considered.

In the facts and the circumstances of this case, the impugned order dated 20.8.1997 whereby recovery is sought to be made from the salary of the petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. However, since there is no interim order operating in this


writ petition any deduction which has already been made from the salary of the petitioner is liable to be  refunded to the petitioner. It is made clear that it will be open to the respondents to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law in the event it is found that  the amount in question has not been recovered from the said contractor.

The writ petition is allowed as aforesaid. No order is passed as to costs.




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


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 |

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