High Court allowed a writ petition quashing the recovery order of Rs. 2,844/- imposed on a LDC employee based only on an audit report, holding it violated principles of natural justice due to lack of prior hearing.
The order of recovery of Rs. 2,844/- from the petitioner is quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 2)
[2023:RJ-JD:34420]
[CW-1076/2003]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1076/2003
Sawai Singh S/o. Shri Durjan Singh, B/c Lakhmana, aged about 42 years, R/o. C/o. Solanki S.T.D. Booth, Kalyanpura Marg No.4, Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Gaur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
11/10/2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed against the recovery made against the petitioner in pursuance of the audit report (Annex.3).
Briefly noted the facts in the case are that the petitioner was working on the post of LDC in the respondent Department. The petitioner was granted certain benefits under Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. On the basis of the audit report – Annex.3, recovery of Rs.2,844/- was sought from the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery from the petitioner is sought to be made on the basis of audit report only & without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. He
[2023:RJ-JD:34420]
[CW-1076/2003]
(2 of 2)
submits that the action of the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the recovery of Rs.2,844/which is sought to be effected from the petitioner may be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that because of the wrong fixation of the petitioner, he has been paid an amount in excess which was not due to him. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, is not in a position to submit that any show cause notice prior to effecting the recovery of an amount of Rs.2,844/- was given to the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the record of the case.
The recovery of Rs.2,844/- is sought to be made from the petitioner in pursuance of the audit report – Annex.3 without giving any show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing to him. The action of the respondents is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the amount of Rs.2,844/- cannot be recovered merely on the basis of audit report from the petitioner.
In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petition merits acceptance. The same is allowed. The order of recovery of Rs.2,844/- from the petitioner is quashed and set aside.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
21-SanjayS/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether recovery can be made from a government employee based solely on an audit report without issuing a show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing?
Sawai Singh
The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary Education Department Government of Rajasthan
The District Education Officer Barmer
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
