Disposed¶11

Raj Narayan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2025WRIA/3984/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench WRIT-A 3984 of 2025 Raj Narayan Singh v State of U.P. Karunesh Singh Pawar interim stay recovery Rs. 9,45,000 retired government employee Village Panchayat Officer Rule 7 U.P. Government Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules 1999 show cause notice 29.10.2024 Governor sanction opportunity of hearing order dated 04.01.2025 counter affidavit 10.07.2025

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of operation of the impugned order dated 04.01.2025 till further orders of the Court; counter affidavit within four weeks, rejoinder within two weeks thereafter, listing on 10.07.2025. ¶11

Raj Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3984 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raj Narayan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi,Deepesh Kumar Yadav,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

A perusal of the order sheet shows that, upon the request of the learned Standing Counsel, multiple opportunities were granted to him to obtain instructions regarding the provision under which the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner, who is a retired government employee.

¶8

It is undisputed that the petitioner retired on 31.01.2022 from the post of Village Panchayat Officer. Post retirement, a show cause notice dated 29.10.2024, annexed as Annexure No. 5, appears to have been issued under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. However, the learned Standing Counsel informs that no further action has been taken by the authorities under the said Rules after issuance of the notice. Nevertheless, the impugned order directing recovery of Rs. 9,45,000/- from the petitioner has been passed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order does not disclose the specific provision under which it has been passed. The procedure prescribed under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 has not been followed, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to

¶10

the petitioner. The order has civil consequences, and furthermore, no sanction from the Governor has been obtained despite the petitioner being a retired government servant.

¶11

In view of the above, till further orders of the Court, the operation of the impugned order dated 04.01.2025, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the petition shall remain stayed.

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit.

¶13

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶14

List on 10.07.2025.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.4.2025 R.C.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Narayan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Narayan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Durgesh Mishra @ Ashish Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vishal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Uma Kant Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Karishma Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Satish Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shyama Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.