- (1.) By way of this intra-Court Appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 9.3.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.666 (SS) of 2015 whereby, the learned Single Judge has declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the appellant's challenge to the communications dated 09.09.2013 and 16.09.2013, by which, the concerned authorities were directed to file a Civil Suit for recovery of the amount of loss said to have been caused by the appellant to the Government.
(2.) Put in a nutshell, the basic submissions of the petitioner-appellant in the writ petition had been that no such Civil Suit was maintainable against him and hence, the orders issued for filing of the suit suffered from want of authority of law; and further, for having been issued without opportunity of hearing, called for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge, however, found the writ petition to be rather misconceived with the observations that the question of maintainability of the suit was to be examined by the trial Court, where the petitioner-appellant could file his objections. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition with a short order that reads as under:- "Supplementary affidavit filed in court, today, be placed on record. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 09.09.2013 and 16.09.2013 by which directions have been issued to Engineer-in-Chief, Public works Department, to file a suit for recovery of losses caused by the petitioner to the department. On a query being made to learned counsel for petitioner as to how the present writ petition is maintainable, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the order of filing of civil suit against the petitioner for recovery towards the losses caused by him to the department is without authority of law and the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the instant writ petition is maintainable. Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, while opposing the writ petition submitted that the petitioner will get ample opportunity to contest the suit by raising all pleas as have been raised by him in the instant writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for rival parties and gone through the record as well as the impugned order. The State Government has directed for filing of civil suit for recovery of losses caused by the petitioner to the department. The question as to whether the civil suit would be maintainable or not, is to be examined by the trial court, where the petitioner may file his objection. In view of above, this Court, while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, finds that the writ petition being misconceived is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed."
(3.) Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter had been that the appellant served with the Public Works Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and retired from service on 31.07.2005 as Junior Engineer. Prior to his retirement, departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the order dated 27.3.2004 for the irregularities, said to have been committed during the period 2002-04; and he was placed under suspension by the order dated 31.3.2004. The appellant superannuated during the pendency of enquiry.;