ORDER : 1. None present on behalf of the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the order passed by B.D.O. and the writ of demand dated 18.11.2004 & subsequent dated 31.03.2005 not served upon the petitioner & further order/warrant of attachment dated 23.04.2005 served upon the petitioner on 23.03.2006 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) If any prejudicial order is passed during the pendency of the writ petition then the same may kindly be taken on record and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) Any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of recovery dated 10.12.2001 has been passed by the respondent No.3 without following the due procedure of law as provided under Section 111 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Counsel further submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Sub-Section 4 of Section 111 of the Act of 1994 which reads as under:- “If the member or, as the case may be, the Chairperson or the deputy Chairperson disputes his liability or its extent, the competent authority or the officer authorized by him after recording evidence in support of the allegations and after giving the concerned office-bearer, opportunity to cross-examine the witness and to adduce evidence in defense shall, by order, determine the extent and amount of liability of such office-bearer for such loss, waste or misapplication of money or property.” 4. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has made the payment for the construction work which was duly verified by the Junior Engineer and Accounts Officer and the quality of construction was checked by the junior engineer and the petitioner cannot be held liable for any mistake on their part. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Har Govind Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) DNJ 432 in Para No. 14, 17 & 18 has held as under:- “14. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Har Govind Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2016 (1) DNJ 432 in Para No. 14, 17 & 18 has held as under:- “14. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that Section 111 of the Act of 1994, which deals with liability of Members as well as Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Panchayati Raj Institutions, inter alia specifically provides that where any loss, waste or mis-application of any money or other property belonging to Panchayati Raj Institution is caused as a direct consequence of neglect or misconduct on the part of members including Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of the Panchayati Raj Institution while in office, they shall be liable for the same. But, as per mandate of the said provision, before determining the extent and amount of liability of such office bearers for such loss, waste or mis-application of money or property, they are required to be served with a notice containing allegations against them and unless, they admit their liability and its amount, the competent authority or authorized officer is required to determine the liability or its extent, after recording evidence in support of allegations and after giving concerned office bearer an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents in creating the demand against the petitioners, who are office bearers of various Gram Panchayats, straight away, on the basis of the inquiry conducted against their back, without adhering to the procedure laid down under Section 111 of the Act, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 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. 18. In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The impugned demands created against the 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. 18. In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The impugned demands created against the 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. Petitions allowed.” 5. None present on behalf of the respondent despite service. 6. The argument raised by counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted for the reasons firstly a bare reading of the order dated 10.12.2001 and subsequent recovery orders clearly shows that prior to passing of the impugned order, the procedure as prescribed under sub-Section 4 of Section 111 of the Act of 1994 was not followed. Secondly, the same controversy has been considered and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Har Govind Singh (supra). 7. Thus in view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the demands created against the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of hearing is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the competent authority to pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition stands allowed.