Allowed

Smt. Urmila and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Panchayat Raj, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2024WRIC/5450/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside an order directing recovery of loss from village panchayat officials. The court held that the order was illegal because the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing or an inquiry was conducted before fixing their responsibility, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.02.2024 set aside; respondents directed to proceed afresh and pass fresh order within three months.

Smt. Urmila and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47952

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5450 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Urmila And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Panchayat Raj, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava,Ram Prakash

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

¶8

The petitioners, who were working as Village Pradhan, Village Secretary and Technical Assistant of Village Panchayat Peethapur Saraiya, Block Katehari, District Ambedkar Nagar, have prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 27.02.2024 (so far as it relates to the petitioners), whereby Block Development Officer, Katehari, Ambedkar Nagar has directed to make payment with regard to the loss caused to the State Exchequer with regard to the various development programs undertaken by the petitioners and order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the respondent no.2.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that one complaint was made by Shri Santram Nishad on the directions of the Minister of State of U.P. and an inquiry was conducted and vide inquiry report dated 19.06.2023 with regard to construction of the panchayat bhawan, which was allegedly not been constructed as per specification and accordingly the responsibility of the petitioners was fixed for the deficiency caused to the State exchequer due to the negligence of the petitioners.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not given any opportunity during the said inquiry and merely on the basis of aforesaid inquiry, the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 has been passed seeking recovery of the said amount from the petitioners.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the petition and submitted that a detailed preliminary inquiry was held before recovery from petitioner was initiated by the

¶12

respondents. He further submitted that the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 has been issued on the basis of order passed by the Chief Development Officer dated 28.08.2023 and the order dated 28.08.2023 is in the same terms as the impugned order dated 27.02.2024.

¶13

From the impugned order, it is clear that petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing neither before the preliminary inquiry nor while passing the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 by the Block Development Officer. With regard to the recovery made from the sitting Pradhan, statutory provisions exists for making such recovery. According to Rule 256 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 necessary inquiry should have been made by the State and from the perusal of the impugned order as well as on the basis of order produced by learned Standing Counsel, there is no mention wherein the petitioners have been given any opportunity to rebut the allegations levelled against them. Howsoever, serious allegations may be but the principles of natural justice should be followed and Pradhan should be given opportunity to explain the negligence in completion of the work under various scheme of the government and allegations must be tested and culpability determined only in accordance with law and adhering to principles of natural justice have been complied.

¶14

In the present case, no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners at any stage. Consequently this Court has no hesitation in upholding that an illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be set aside on this score alone.

¶15

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order 27.02.2024 are set aside on the above grounds as the petitioners were not afforded opportunity of hearing and the respondents are directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law and pass fresh order within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Anupam S/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Urmila and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Panchayat Raj, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Urmila and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Panchayat Raj, Lucknow 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sushil Singh @ Sushil Kumar Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

M/S Ultimate Infovision Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative Shri Abhijeet Sarkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Infrastructure and Industrial Development,Lko. and 3 Ors.

Indra Bahadur Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Institutional Finance, Lucknow and Others

Aditya Singh Patel Thru. His Father Surat Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Education New Delhi and 2 Others

Dwarika Prasad Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cane Development Lko. and 2 Others