Quashed

Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2024WRIA/2066/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Village Development Officer challenged three recovery orders deducting from his salary, passed about seven years after audit without notice or hearing. The court found the orders violated natural justice since no opportunity of hearing was given, and quashed them, allowing fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Arvind Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:22873

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2066 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Panchayati Raj Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Singh,Birendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Present petition has been preferred for quashing of the three impugned orders passed on the same date i.e. 19.02.2024 passed by the respondent no. 5-District Panchayat Raj Officer, District Pratapgarh whereby the recovery has been made from the salary of the petitioner and with a further prayer not to proceed any further in pursuance of the impugned orders.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of Village Development Officer and after about 7 years of completion of audit works of the Village Panchayat Akodhiya and Hariharpur for the financial year 2012-13 and 2013-14, the three impugned orders of recovery dated 19.02.2024 has been passed.

¶9

It is further submitted that prior to passing of the impugned orders neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and order of recovery has been passed for deduction from the salary of the petitioner every month.

¶10

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received has submitted that the petitioner has committed irregularity and illegalities due to which after going through the record orders of recovery has been passed against him but very fairly submitted that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned orders.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record of the case, it is found that orders of recovery dated 19.02.2024 which are under challenge in the present petition have been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner hence the orders are bad in the eyes of law and against the principle of natural justice.

¶12

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed.

¶13

The three orders under challenge dated 19.02.2024 passed by the respondent no. 5 are hereby quashed, however, respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if they so desire.

¶14

Order Date :- 15.3.2024 Ashish

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hari Narain Mishra Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services

Sarvesh Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Constable Driver (Cdr) Personnel No. 040770332 Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. and 4 Others

Dr. Keshav Puri Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Deptt. Lko. and Another

Akash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 5 Others