Allahabad High Court
Shambhu Nath Mishra vs State Of U.P. & Others on 25 January, 2010
Author: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2923 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shambhu Nath Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- R.C. Singh,B.S. Yadav Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
Sri R.C. Singh contends that the petitioner has been saddled with pecuniary liabilities on the strength of a report dated 24.12.2009 and the impugned order dated 14.1.2010 has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to confront the finding arrived at in the inquiry.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that such a liability should not have been fixed on the petitioner without giving any opportunity. A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.1.2010 does not indicate that the petitioner was given any opportunity to rebut the finding which was arrived at by the inquiry Officer and a copy of the inquiry report has been handed over to him along with the impugned order dated 14.1.2010. The direction under the impugned order is to the Chief Development Officer to proceed to take appropriate action in the matter.
Sri Singh contends that even though no orders have been passed by the Chief Development Officer so far yet the direction contained in the order of the Commissioner, Rural Development, is binding on the Chief Development Officer and, therefore, the petitioner apprehends that the entire realisation shall be made from the petitioner under the aforesaid direction. He contends that the proceeding so adopted is in violation of principles of natural justice which shall cause prejudice to the petitioner and, therefore, an appropriate direction should be issued in this regard.
Learned Standing counsel contends that the Chief Development Officer is yet to proceed to take action in the matter and, therefore, the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself with liberty to the petitioner to file an objection to the inquiry report which has been made the basis of the direction contained in the order dated 14.1.2010.
Accordingly, it is hereby provided that the Chief Development Officer shall not proceed to make any recovery from the petitioner without finalizing the inquiry and without hearing the objection of the petitioner which shall be filed by the petitioner within 15 days. The Chief Development Officer shall proceed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with rules dispassionately after considering the objection of the petitioner within 3 weeks thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.1.2010 Irshad