Allowed

Smt. Santosh Bhambhi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2023CW/2975/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the writ petition in the same terms as the decided case of Har Govind Singh. The impugned order initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner was quashed and the matter remanded to the competent authority to conduct an inquiry afresh after providing a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery order dated 06.01.2023 quashed and set aside; matter remanded for inquiry with hearing; deposited amount subject to final outcome.

Smt. Santosh Bhambhi Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:32977]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2975/2023

¶4

Smt. Santosh Bhambhi W/o Shri Shiv Narayan Bhambhi, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Shiv Mohallah, Near Ramdev Mandir, Bhadsoda, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

1. The Block Development Officer Cum Programme Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Manish Patel.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Hargovind Chandra for Mr. KK Bissa.

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

05/10/2023

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Har Govind Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13949/2015 and other connected matters and its relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

¶15

“17. For the aforementioned reasons, the demands created against the petitioners, on the basis of the inquiry conducted in their back, without giving them an opportunity of hearing, deserve to be quashed.

¶16

18. In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The impugned demands created against the

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:32977]

[CW-2975/2023]

petitioners by the respondents are quashed. The matter shall stand remanded to the competent authority to pass an appropriate order afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law. The amount already deposited by the petitioners against the demands created, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court or otherwise, shall be subject to final outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the competent authority. If the petitioners are held liable for the loss, if any, caused to the Panchayati Raj Institution, the amount already deposited by them, shall be adjusted against the demand created, If any. Needless to say that if the petitioners are exonerated, the amount, if any, deposited by them or where the demand created against them is found to be less than the amount already deposited by them, the excess amount, shall be refunded to them. No order as to costs.”

¶21

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms as mentioned in the case of Har Govind Singh (supra) . In the result, the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure-1) issued by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh for initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner is quashed and set aside.

¶22

The matter shall stand remanded to the competent authority to pass an appropriate order afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. The amount already deposited by the petitioner against the demands created, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court or otherwise, shall be subject to final outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the competent authority. If the petitioner is held liable for the loss, if any, caused to the Panchayati Raj Institution, the amount already deposited by them, shall be adjusted against the demand created, if any. Needless to say that if the petitioner is exonerated, the amount, if any, deposited by her or where the demand created against her is found to be less than the amount already deposited

[2023:RJ-JD:32977]

[CW-2975/2023]

(3 of 3)

by her, the excess amount, shall be refunded to her. No order as to costs.

¶27

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶28

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶29

387-/Jitender//-

Smt. Santosh Bhambhi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Santosh Bhambhi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasik Lal Jain Vs State and Ors.

Gautam Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Kan Singh Khinchi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Kumar Mehta Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Naina Construction Company Vs the State of Rajasthan

Harish Kumar Vs Ashok Ranka