Allowed

Devendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2018WRIA/36063/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an order recovering money from a school employee for defective construction. The writ petition alleged violation of natural justice as no enquiry or show cause notice was issued. The court held the recovery order illegal, discharged the amount, and directed the recovery process adhere to legal procedures and natural justice in future.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of recovery dated 28.6.2007 is quashed. The petitioner is to be reimbursed the recovered amount with 6% interest within three months.

Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36063 of 2007

¶3

Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P. Singh,R.K.Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,P.K.Bhardwaj,Yatindra

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By the order dated 28.6.2007, a recovery of Rs.48,510/- is sought to be made from the salary of the petitioner. The recovery has been ordered on the ground of deficiency in the construction of certain buildings in the school. The constructions were not made in conformity with the required parameters. The deficient constructions caused loss to the state exchequer.

¶6

The submission of Sri Ratnesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of recovery was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted prior to the fixation of the pecuniary liability upon the petitioner and No show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire amount has been recovered from the petitioner.

¶7

Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 fairly submits that the order assailed in the writ petition passed in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, he is not in a position to demonstrate from the counter affidavit and record that an enquiry was conducted in the matter prior to the passing of the order impugned. He is also not in a position to point out from the record whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order was entered. Sri Yatindra

¶8

further submits that a number of letters were issued to the petitioner to carry out the reconstruction of the defective works. The petitioner was aware of the nature of the charges levelled against him. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid letters but did not carry out the reconstruction.

¶9

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, only issue which falls for consideration is whether the order impugned in the writ petition dated 28.6.2007 was passed in due compliance of principles of natural justice or not. Admittedly, the aforesaid order visits the petitioner with penal consequences. It is specifically asserted in the paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the writ petition that the entire proceedings were ex parte to the petitioner. He was not even served a show cause notice before the impugned order was passed. In paragraph 19 and 12 of the writ petition of the counter affidavit, it is asserted that there was no requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The defects in the construction were apparent to the naked eye.

¶10

The counter affidavit shows the complete disregard to the rule of law. It manifests the outrightly arbitrary act of the respondent no.2.

¶11

In view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, the order dated 28.6.2007 has been quashed by adopting the procedure in law. There has been flagrant and almost defiant violation of principles of natural justice.

¶12

The order dated 28.6.2007 passed by the respondent no.2 is arbitrary and illegal. The order dated 28.6.2007 passed by the respondent No.2

¶13

(Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is quashed.

¶14

In the facts of this case, the principles of natural justice were violated. But more importantly the respondent no.2, who has filed the counter affidavit, is ignorant of law. The respondent No.1 is commanded to issue appropriate directions and take requisite measures to ensure that in similar cases in future the recovery proceedings are conducted in accordance with law and the officers are made aware of the law.

¶15

Loss caused to the state exchequer cannot go unnoticed and unretrieved. The defaulting employees have to make good the losses caused to the state exchequer. It is the duty of the competent authority to recover the amount from the employees held responsible for the loss.

¶16

However, the recovery has to be made by adopting a procedure which is prescribed by law and consistent with the principles of natural justice.

¶17

The writ petition is allowed.

¶18

The entire amount, if recovered from the petitioner, shall be reimbursed to him along with 6% interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 29.8.2018

¶20

Ashish Tripathi

Devendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Kalawati Vs State of U.P. and Others

Purusottam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Brijendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Arvind Kumar Pandey Vs Union of India and Others

Kailash Nath Vs State of U.P. and Others