NEETU SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(UTN)-2012-11-28
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on November 07,2012

NEETU SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders doted 9th March, 2005 and 17th May, 2005, annexure 5 and 7 to the writ petition. By the first order dated 9th March, 2005, the petitioner has been fastened with liability to pay Rs. 1,79,065.50.
(2.) Short fact of the case is that at night of 11th and 12th March, 2002, a theft was committed by certain persons in the Store of Kandriya Bhandar Khand-III at Ramganga Bandh Mandal, Kalagarh. At the relevant time when theft was committed, the petitioner was Incharge of Store and was discharging his duty as a Store Keeper. Police case was started. The respondents authority decided to hold an inquiry to ascertain the quantum of loss which might have occurred because of theft of store materials. After holding inquiry, the impugned order as mentioned in the letter dated 9th March, 2005 was passed quantifying the amount of loss and damages alleged to have been suffered by the department on account of theft. On 16th February, 2005, a notice was issued asking the petitioner to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice as to why liability should not be fixed upon him for this loss. This show cause notice was replied within time by the petitioner. However, the impugned order was passed on 9th March, 2005 fastening the liability of payment Rs. 1,79,065/- out of quantified loss of Rs. 1,98,961.50. The petitioner has said that without considering his reply aforesaid order was passed and this factum of non-consideration is admitted in the counter affidavit with a rider that the reply was not received within time.
(3.) Sri Subhash Upadhayaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, admittedly, without considering the explanation of the petitioner the aforesaid order was passed. Moreover, there is no provision of law under which alleged loss can be quantified and can be put forward to make demand for payment like a decree of a civil court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.