Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 550 (ALL)

Vinod Kumar Srivastava v. State of U. P.

2010-02-10

K.N.PANDEY, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2010
JUDGMENT On oral prayer made by Shri R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to correct the description of respondent no.1 in the array of parties in the Writ Petition as well as in the Stay Application. 2. We have heard Shri R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Saxena, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and 6. 3. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at this stage. 4. From the averments made in the Writ Petition, it transpires that the petitioner is in Provincial Medical Service. On 12.1.2006, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Medical Superintendent (Level-III) by the State Government. In pursuance of his promotion, the petitioner took charge on the post of Medical Superintendent at Community Health Centre, Mohammadabad Gohana, District - Mau. 5. From the averments made in the Writ Petition, it further transpires that certain irregularities in the account of Janani Suraksha Yojna (JSY) were detected, and the petitioner was required to recover Rs. 68,150/- for the year 2007-08 from the erring officials, and deposit the same in the Bank Account. As the petitioner failed to make the said recovery, an order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) was issued directing for recovering the said amount of Rs. 68,150/- from the petitioner by making deduction from his salary @ Rs. 6815/- per month for ten months. 6. It is, interalia, averred in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Writ Petition that the said order dated 10.8.2009 was issued without issuing any Show-Cause Notice to the petitioner and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. It further transpires from the averments made in the Writ Petition that an application was submitted by the petitioner on 3.9.2009 through Shri Jai Ram Verma, Advocate under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Chief Medical Officer, Mau seeking information in regard to the points mentioned in the said application. Copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition. Point No. 4 mentioned in the said application was as under: "4. Copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition. Point No. 4 mentioned in the said application was as under: "4. D;k mijksDr xcu ds lEcU/k esa vkids }kjk vFkok Mk0 ,l0 ,u0 ik.Ms; o Mk0 oh0 dqekj ¼vij eq[; fpfdRlkf/kdkjhx.k½ dksbZ vyx ls tkap vFkok vk[;k izkIr gS ;fn gka rks mldh lR; izfrfyfi izkFkhZ dks izkIr djkus dh d`ik djsaA" 8. In response to the said application, information was provided to the petitioner by the communication dated 3.11.2009 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition). In regard to the aforesaid Point No.4, the reply was as under: "fcUnq 4 & eq[; fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ds Lrj ls mDr ds lEcU/k esa fdlh vf/kdkjh ls dksbZ tkap ugh djk;h x;h gSA" 9. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reply given in response to the application of the petitioner that the order dated 10.8.2009 directing for making recovery of the said amount of Rs. 68,150/- was issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. It is further pertinent to note that in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, which contains reply of paragraphs 19 to 24 of the Writ Petition, there is no specific denial of the averments made in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Writ Petition regarding non-issuance of any Show-Cause Notice, non-giving of any opportunity of hearing and violation of principles of natural justice. 11. In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the recovery against the petitioner has been directed by the impugned order dated 10.8.2009 without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order dated 10.8.2009 is, thus, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed, and the order dated 10.8.2009 is liable to be quashed. 12. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 10.8.2009 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) is quashed. 13. However, it will be open to the concerned respondents to take fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. 14. In case any recovery has been made from the petitioner pursuant to the said order dated 10.8.2009, the amount so recovered from the petitioner will be refunded to him within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned respondent.