Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 305 of 2023

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, aged about 61 years, son of Late Diwakar Prasad, residing at Pushpanjali Apartment, Morabadi, Post Morabadi, Police Station Bariatu, District Ranchi

¶4

The State of Jharkhand;

¶5

The Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Nepal House, Post Doranda, Police Station Doranda, District Ranchi;

¶6

The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Pashupalan Bhawan, Post Hatia, Police Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi;

¶7

The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi officiating from Pashupalan Bhawan, Post Hatia, Police Station Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi

¶8

… … Respondents ---

¶9

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

--For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate

¶11

¶12

08 /12.03.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶13

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶14

“For issuance of an appropriate writ/ Rule/Direction particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the office order contained in Memo No. 389 dated 07.09.2022 (Annexure-2) issued under the signature of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi whereby and whereunder Rs. 4,94,307/- has been recovered from the petitioner without giving any show-cause or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and moreso, after his superannuation. And for a further direction to the respondents to refund Rs. 4,94,307/- as well as to pay the annual increments of the petitioner for the financial year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 and calculate and pay his Pension and other post retiral dues. And for a further direction to pay the difference of the monetary benefits in lieu of grant of 1^st Assured Career Progression Scheme by letter contained in Memo No. 2846 dated 23.12.2011. And for any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to.”

¶15

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2022 and by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2, huge amount to the tune of Rs. 4,94,307/-has been sought to be recovered.

¶16

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that from the records of this case, it stands admitted that no show-cause was issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the adverse order of

¶17

2

¶18

recovery and therefore, on this short point itself, the impugned order calls for interference.

¶19

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to order dated 07.02.2024 and has submitted that the petitioner also relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others” reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

¶20

6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer, has submitted that though no show-cause notice was issued, but the recovery was made on the basis of undertaking given by the petitioner himself. He also submits that there was an order of punishment imposed against the petitioner which has been brought on record in the counter-affidavit. Even in the writ petition, this aspect of the matter has been disclosed.

¶21

7. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the judgment passed in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) was subject matter of consideration subsequently in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh” reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and has submitted that since the petitioner had given an undertaking with regard to recovery, the judgment passed in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) is not applicable.

¶22

8. However, it is not in dispute that so far as the impugned order is concerned, no opportunity of hearing or no show-cause was issued to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order.

¶23

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of dispute involved in the present case, this Court is of the considered view that no order of recovery could have been passed, as has been passed in the present case, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner even if the recovery was pursuant to one or the other undertaking given by the petitioner. The petitioner may also have some submission with regard to the undertaking regarding recovery. Other aspects of the matter are also required to be considered for which an opportunity of hearing was to be given.

¶24

3

¶25

10. Accordingly, on this short point of violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 as contained in Annexure- 2 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set aside, so that an opportunity of hearing is granted to the petitioner and a fresh order be passed in accordance with law.

¶26

11. Considering the nature of dispute involved in this case, this Court is of the view that hearing in the present case be given by the Respondent No. 3.

¶27

12. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Respondent No. 3 by filing a detailed representation along with a copy of this order and a copy of the writ records within a period of 15 days from today. Upon filing of such representation, the petitioner or an authorized representative of the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of hearing and the Respondent No. 3 shall pass a reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of the representation. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address to be provided by the petitioner in the representation. The recovery, if any, would be subject to the fresh order to be passed by the Respondent No. 3.

¶28

13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶30

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶31

Pankaj

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imam Ahmed Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Kaushal Kishor Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sukar Bhuia Vs the Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour

Ravindra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rekha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs