SUDESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 9975 of 2012 which is being treated as leading writ petition. It shall be sufficient to refer the pleadings in writ petition no. 9975 of 2012 to decide all the writ petitions. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 9.2.2012 by which an order has been issued for recovery an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- from each of the petitioners.

(2.) THE inquiry report dated 17.1.2012 has also been challenged. The petitioners, in these writ petitions were working in different capacity in the District Bulandshahar. The petitioner, Satyaveer Singh has been working as Block Development Officer, Khurja, petitioner Sudesh Kumar was elected Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Aasafpur, Vikas khand Khurja, petitioner Dinesh Kumar Bhatnagar was working as Junior Account Clerk and petitioner Sundar Pal was working as Village Development Officer. Certain Indira Avas were allotted under the scheme of the State Government, all the petitioners where associated in the allotment of Indira Avas. An inquiry was held and it was found that certain illegal allotments have been made to several persons who were not eligible for allotment. The District Magistrate has conducted an inquiry and submitted his report dated 17.1.2012 after inspecting the relevant records, on the basis of such report, an order has been passed on 9.2.2012 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- total amount 5,40,000/- from different petitioners who were directed to deposit 25% of the total amount each. Sri Ram Jee Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order submitted that no notice was given to the petitioners before passing the order for recovery. In writ petition no. 9975 of 2012, specific averments have been made in paragraph no. 12 and 13 that no opportunity was given to the petitioner. The said averments of paragraph 12 and 13 are replied in paragraph 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit there is no denial to the allegations that order was passed without opportunity. In view of the aforesaid it is clear that order for recovery have been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioners. Before directing for recovery it was incumbent on the respondents to give a show cause notice to the petitioners to explain their conduct.

(3.) IF the petitioner does not file their objections within four weeks as directed above, it shall be open to the District Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law.