Allowed

Smt. Manju Devi v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2018WRIC/50576/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a former Gram Pradhan, challenged an ex-parte inquiry order directing her to deposit Rs. 1.21 lakh without a show cause notice. The High Court quashed the order for violation of natural justice principles, directing the authority to pass a fresh order after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order of 14.09.2012 for violation of natural justice; remanded for fresh proceedings after hearing.

Smt. Manju Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50576 of 2012

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Manju Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. S.K. Yadav,J.K. Chakraborty Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia for the following reliefs :-

¶6

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.09.2012 passed by the Respondent no. 3 (Annexure no. 1).

¶7

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents did not initiate any recovery proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of impugned order dated 14.09.2012 passed by the Respondent no. 3 (Annexure no.1).

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was elected as Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Gauspur. She completed her term of five years (2005-2010) successfully, during this period neither any villager nor any officer made any complaint against the petitioner.

¶10

However, in the year 2011, after lapse of about 6/7 years, some strangers, who were not residing in the Gram Panchayat, Gauspur, made a fictitious complaint against the work done by the petitioner

¶11

during the year 2005 to 2010 and requested to initiate inquiry against the petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Respondents without issuing any show cause notice or giving any opportunity conducted the ex-parte inquiry and held her guilty and, thereafter, the respondent no. 3 again without issuing any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,21,660/-.

¶13

Since, the entire inquiry proceedings as well as the impugned order dated 14.09.2012 has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner violating the principles of natural justice, the impugned order dated 14.09.2012 passed by the respondent no. 3, Karyakram Adhikari/Program Officer, Block Hathgaon, Tehsil Khaga, District Fatehpur, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

¶14

However, it is open to the authority to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the petitioner can take all legal pleas as permissible under the law before the respondent no.2.

¶15

With the above observations, this writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 24.7.2018 A. GANGWAR

Smt. Manju Devi v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ghanendra Pal @ Dhanendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohan Singh Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Saleem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shambhu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others