The High Court quashed an order directing salary recovery from a Collection Amin for alleged excess salary, held to be arbitrary and violating principles of natural justice and Article 14, as no opportunity of hearing was provided.
The order dated 21.01.2006 directing recovery of Rs. 34,450/- is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7392 of 2006 Petitioner :- Balveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anita Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Petitioner is a Collection Amin. By the order dated 21.01.2006, recovery to the extent of Rs. 34,450/- was ordered against the petitioner on the foot of excess salary being released in his favour. Despite several opportunities no counter affidavit has been filed till date.
The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no excess salary was paid to the petitioner and the impugned order has been filed in violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that had the petitioner been provided an opportunity of hearing he would have demonstrated that the objection recorded in the impugned order which was made basis of the recovery, in itself was incorrect.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to various documents. An interim order was also granted to the petitioner. In compliance of the interim order no recovery has been made by the petitioner.
Despite several opportunities the State respondents have not filed counter affidavit. The specific assertion regarding violation of principles of natural justice made in the writ petition has not been traversed or refuted. A perusal of the order itself shows that the defence of the petitioner was neither called nor considered before passing the impugned order.
The order dated 21.01.2006 visited the petitioner with penal consequences. The order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 21.01.2006 is arbitrary, illegal and passed in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 21.01.2006 is quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. However it is open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Pravin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order directing salary recovery in violation of principles of natural justice is sustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution.
A constitutional writ petition challenging recovery on account of excess salary in absence of an opportunity of being heard.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balveer Singh
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
