Partly allowed

Dileep Kumar Singh and 11 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024/5149/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition challenging orders dated 28.05.2024 and 16.09.2023 regarding alleged embezzlement under the Panchayati Raj Act. The court quashed the orders relying on an inquiry report finding no government loss and remanded the matter for a fresh order in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 28.05.2024 and 16.09.2023 are quashed so far as they relate to the petitioners. The matter is remanded to the competent authority to pass a fresh order.

Dileep Kumar Singh and 11 Others Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47290

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5149 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Singh And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed following main reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.5.2024 and 16.9.2023 (so far as it relates to the petitioners), passed by the opposite party No.4, contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to this writ petition.

¶9

(ii) issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to not to recover any amount from the petitioners in pursuance of impugned order dated 28.5.2024 and 16.9.2023, passed by the opposite party No.4."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned orders dated 28.05.2024 and 16.09.2023 have been passed without considering the finding of inquiry report in which clearly mentioned that petitioners have not committed any embezzlement or Government loss and in violation of Section 27 and Rule 256(A) of Panchayati Raj Act, as such impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Further, the petitioners have not committed any embezzlement or caused financial loss to the Government, this is only procedural fault/human error. Further submission is that Section 27 and Rule 256(A) of Panchayati Raj Act clearly define that if any misappropriation of Government fund is done by an employee, that must be recovered from the concerned person. In the present matter, in inquiry report, it is clearly mentioned that there is no any embezzlement/caused loss to Government by the petitioners, as such the order dated 16.09.2023 is passed against the provision of the aforesaid Act. The concerned labourers i.e. skilled/unskilled have given their affidavits in which they admitted that they obtained their amount from the petitioners

¶11

against the work done in the concerned Vikas Khand and no amount is due for payment against work done by them.

¶12

Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has stated on the basis of instructions that after revisiting the impugned orders, the authorities have decided to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

From the aforesaid instructions, it appears that the orders impugned are liable to be set aside/ quashed at this stage as the authorities are willing to pass a fresh order after revisiting the impugned orders so far as they relate to the petitioners.

¶14

Accordingly, the orders dated 28.05.2024 and 16.09.2023 passed by opposite party No.4, contained in Annexures No.1 and 2 to this writ petition, are hereby quashed so far as they relate to the petitioners.

¶15

The matter is remanded back to the competent authority to pass a fresh order, strictly in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, if it is so needed.

¶16

Thus, the writ petition is allowed .

¶17

No order as to costs.

¶18

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶19

Order Date :- 11.7.2024 RBS/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dileep Kumar Singh and 11 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Kumar Singh and 11 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Balwan Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 2 Others

Nand Kumar Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others

Girish Chandra Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Trade Tax Lko and 3 Others

Rampal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mohammad Saheem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.