KALIKA PRASAD KUREEL Vs. COLLECTOR FARRUKHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23-5-1988 passed by District Development Officer, Farrukhabad, respondent No. 2 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) as also the order dated 20-5-1988 passed by the Collector/farrukhabad, respondent No. 1 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition.)

(2.) BY means of order dated 20-5-1988, the Collector, Farrukhabad had directed for recovery of Rs. 50,598. 40 from the petitioner as he has been found to have spent the said amount in excess. Vide order dated 23-5-1988 the District Development Officer, Farrukhabad had sent the copy of the order dated 20- 5-1988 for compliance. According to the petitioner, he was working as Block Development Officer and during the course of his posting at various blocks in district Farrukhabad there was an order of implementation of the scheme sponsored by the Government of Uttar Pradesh providing residential houses to landless agricultural labourers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes namely Gramin Bhumihin Rojgar Guarantee Karyakram ke Antargat Awasiya Bhawano ke Nirman Hetu Nirdeshika. The directory contains the details of map for the construction of the houses and the amount to be spent. The petitioner who retired on 29-2- 1988 did not face any departmental enquiry during his career and an enquiry was initiated against him after his retirement and impugned order dated 20-5- 1998 was passed for the recovery of Rs. 50,598. 40 against the petitioner.

(3.) FROM the reading of aforesaid averments it is clear that neither show cause notice nor opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before determining the amount of alleged expenditure or directing for the recovery of the alleged amount from the petitioner. No doubt the Government of Uttar Pradesh is empowered to recover the loss caused to it even after the retirement of the employee but the principles of natural justice has not been followed which ought to have been followed. In the present case neither show cause notice nor opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 20- 5-1988 passed the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. However, it is open to it to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after issuing show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be taken into consideration by the authority concerned after the fresh order which may be passed by the Collector, Farrukhabad. The Collector, Farrukhabad shall take a final decision in the matter within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.