- (1.) CONNECT with Writ Petition No. 76668 of 2011 (Ram Singh vs. State of U.P. and others).
(2.) THE petitioner is an Ex. Pradhan. During the period 2007 to 2010 the petitioner was the Pradhan of the village in question. She is aggrieved by order dated 2.11.2011 passed by the respondent No. 2 (District Panchayat Raj Officer, Auraiya) whereby she has been required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,78,350/ - for certain irregularities, which were committed during the period 2007 -08 and 2009 -10. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that no notice prior to enquiry or after the enquiry was ever given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 2.11.2011.
(3.) TIME was granted to learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions and on having received the same, it has been submitted that the petitioner refused to accept the notice with regard to enquiry and after the enquiry was completed and report submitted on 28.10.2011, a notice was served on the petitioner through the other co -accused Ram Singh on 31.10.2011 and thereafter the impugned order has been passed on 2.11.2011. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that mere formality of issuing notice and serving copy of enquiry report dated 28.10.2011 was fulfilled by the respondents, as within 48 hours of the issuance of the letter dated 31.10.2011 the impugned order of recovery has been passed, meaning thereby that the respondents did not have any intention of giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit her reply. It is further submitted that if there were any irregularity committed during 2007 -08, the same could have been pointed out at that time and further funds ought not to have been released by the respondent authorities. What is revealed is that the respondents have admittedly released the funds even in the year 2009 - 10. In our view, the matter requires consideration.;