Babloo Rai vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 15885 of 2025

Babloo Rai

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mariyam Azmi, Jamil Ahamad Azmi, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 34

¶8

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Jamil Ahamad Azmi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶10

This Court on 29.10.2025 sought instructions from the learned Standing Counsel. Today, instructions have been produced before the Court under the signatures of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Azamgarh dated 21.11.2025.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the instructions are self-sufficient and he is in a position to argue the matter and he does not propose to file any affidavit.

¶12

With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

¶13

The case of the writ petitioner is that he while posted as Gram Vikas Adhikari in Vikas Khand, Rani Ka Sarai, District Azamgarh, was confronted with a recovery order which is Annexure-1 at page-24 of the paper-book, Annexure-2 at page-31 of the paper-book and Annexure-3 at page-35 of the paper-book, whereby an amount of Rs.5769749/-, Rs.3228794/- and Rs.93331/- is being sought to be recovered from the writ petitioner, who is Village Development Officer and Smt. Sarita, Gram Pradhan on the premise that there has been misappropriation of the Government Funds and thus there was loss to the State Exchequer.

¶14

This Court entertained the writ petition on 29.10.2025, while passing the following orders:

¶15

WRIA No. 15885 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

" 1. Contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner happens to be Gram Vikas Adhikari, and now, recovery orders have been issued. The same are exparte and unilateral without resorting to conduction of enquiry under the Departmental Rules or the Surcharge Rules.

¶18

2. Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel seeks time to obtain instructions.

¶19

3. Put up this case on 06.11.2025, as fresh. "

¶20

Thereafter, on 20.11.2025, the following orders have been passed:-

¶21

" On 29th October, 2025, this Court proceeded to pass the following order:-

¶22

"1. Contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner happens to be Gram Vikas Adhikari, and now, recovery orders have been issued. The same are exparte and unilateral

¶23

without resorting to conduction of enquiry under the Departmental Rules or the Surcharge Rules.

¶24

2. Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel seeks time to obtain instructions.

¶25

3. Put up this case on 06.11.2025, as fresh."

¶26

On 13th November, 2025, the following order has been passed:-

¶27

"1. Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel seeks time to comply with the order dated 29.09.2025.

¶28

2. Put up this case as fresh on 20.11.2025."

¶29

Today again time has been sought.

¶30

It is quite surprising that authorities do not care to provide instructions, meaning thereby, the cases are to be decided without instructions.

¶31

Put up this case on 26th November, 2025 as fresh.

¶32

In case, instructions are not provided on the next date fixed, the District Magistrate, District- Azamgarh shall remain present personally. "

¶33

Instructions have been provided, which are taken on record and marked as Appendix 'A'.

¶34

Learned Senior Counsel has sought to argue that the impugned recovery proceedings cannot be sustained, particularly when, the writ petitioner was not at any point of time, served with the show-cause notice. Further submission is that it is also not clear under which provision of law, the said recovery is being sought to be made as there are two provisions, firstly, U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 and U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the entire action is unilateral behind the back of the writ petitioner.

¶35

Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the instructions so received by him has invited the attention of the Court towards page-21 of

¶36

WRIA No. 15885 of 2025

¶37

3

¶38

the instructions so as to contend that on 08.02.2022, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Azamgarh, issued a show cause notice show causing the writ petitioner with regard to the misappropriate of an amount of Rs.5769749/followed by another show cause notice dated 05.09.2022 of the same amount. He submits that the writ petitioner has not submitted any reply to the show cause notice. Thus, the recovery proceeding has been initiated.

¶39

I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record.

¶40

Apparently, the writ petitioner is a Village Development Officer. With regard to any loss sustained by the State, there are two avenues open for the respondents, firstly, to proceed under the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 and secondly, while taking resort to the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. A bare look of the instructions would reveal that there happens to be two show-cause notices dated 08.02.2022 and 05.09.2022 for an amount of Rs.5769749/-. With respect to the other two amounts being Rs.3228794/- and Rs.93331/-, no notices have been annexed with the instructions. Pertinently, there is no order passed by the respondents, as once a show cause notice came to be issued, then in case no reply has been submitted by the affected parties, then too an order came to be passed in that regard. The said orders are also not available. Further the writ petitioner has disputed the services of the said notice and there is nothing on record to substantiate the mode and manner and the date on which the said show cause notices were served upon the writ petitioner. Since an order has to be passed on the show cause notice and the same has not been done and bearing in mind the fact that the writ petitioner alleges that he is not served with the notices, thus the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in following terms:

¶41

(a) The orders (undated) Annexure-1 at page-24 of the paper-book, Annexure-2 at page-31 of the paper-book and Annexure-3 at page-35 of the paper-book seeking to recover an amount of Rs.57,69,749/-, Rs.32,28,794/and Rs.93,331/- from the writ petitioner are set aside.

¶42

(b) Passing of the order will not preclude the respondents from issuing showcause notice and seeking reply.

¶43