Allowed

Ramniwas Kumhar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 May 2024CW/10213/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed a writ petition challenging an order seeking monetary recovery from a petitioner. The court held the impugned order unsustainable as it was passed without a prior show-cause notice, inquiry, or opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice under CCA Rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.07.2021 seeking recovery of Rs. 48,230 is set aside.

Ramniwas Kumhar Vs State of Rajasthan — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:24190]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10213/2021

¶4

Ramniwas Kumhar S/o Shri Sukh Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Bagoria, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Presently Gram Sevak Gram Panchayat Nadsar, Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur.

¶8

The Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Ombudsman, Mngnrega, District Jodhpur.

¶10

The District Program Coordinator (Mgnrega) And District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶11

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur. 6. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

¶12

The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. RajdeepSingh

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶16

Order

¶17

17/05/2024

¶18

Grievance of the petitioner herein is against impugned order dated 23.07.2021 (Annex.7), whereby, an amount of Rs.48,230/is sought to be recovered from him.

¶19

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the impugned order for recovery of the amount against

[2024:RJ-JD:24190]

[CW-10213/2021]

(2of 3)

the petitioner has been passed without either issuing any prior show cause notice or otherwise granting any opportunity of hearing or conducting any inquiry, whatsoever, to ascertain the alleged loss caused to the department.

¶24

He submits that petitioner is governed by Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification,Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. In accordance thereof, no recovery can be made from the government official without following the procedure as prescribed therein.

¶25

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Kishan Sharma Vs. State of Raj.& Ors.: S.B.C.W.P. No.11560/2019, decided on 22.07.2020 .

¶26

There is specific averment of the petitioner contained in his pleadings that neither any show cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was conducted.

¶27

In the reply filed, no response has been given qua the aforesaid averment. The same is, therefore, an admission, though tacit, that neither any show cause notice was issued nor any inquiry was indeed conducted.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on a Court query, does not dispute that no inquiry was conducted against the petitioner before passing of the impugned order. He would,however, urge that in cases of loss caused to the government or misappropriation or embezzlement, the department is entitled to recover the amount of loss from the delinquent employee.

[2024:RJ-JD:24190]

[CW-10213/2021]

(3of 3)

In principle, I am in agreement with the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents. But even such a recovery, if at all is to be made, same is also governed by the Rules of procedure. Without following the prescribed procedure, administrative orders cannot be arbitrarily passed, that too, in violation of principle of natural justice, without according any opportunity to the delinquent employee to present his case.

¶33

Neither was the petitioner afforded any opportunity nor otherwise also any finding is recorded qua his alleged delinquency,nor is it a case, where the department even endeavored to conduct an inquiry by following the due procedure under the CCA Rules ibid.

¶34

In this context, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment cited hereinabove and rightly relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶35

In the premise, having heard the learned counsels representing the respective parties, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 23.07.2021 is not sustainable.

¶36

As an upshot, the petition has to be necessarily allowed. The impugned order dated 23.07.2021 (Annex.7) is set aside.

¶37

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶38

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶39

Whether fit to be reported : Yes / No

¶40

109-skm/-

Ramniwas Kumhar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramniwas Kumhar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeev Vs the State of Rajasthan

Umesh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Suman Vs State of Rajasthan

Snehlata Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Molita Devi Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Hari Kishan Vs the State of Rajasthan