P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) Petitioner, Ms. Aruna Jain w/o Late Shri Paras Kumar Jain, who was working as Gram Sevak-cum-Officiating Secretary under Zila Parishad, Udaipur, has preferred this writ petition to challenge order dated 22nd of August, 2016 (Annex.2), whereby Vikas Adhikari, Rishabhdev granted approval for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,75,000/- from her Late husband Shri Paras Kumar Jain.
(2.) It is, inter-alia, pleaded in the writ petition that, Paras Kumar Jain, husband of petitioner, died in harness on 2nd of March, 2016 and the impugned order was issued posterior to his death. The petitioner, for claiming the relief aforesaid has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Har Govind SinghOrs. v. StateOrs. with 215 other connected petitions. A Coordinate Bench, while invoking Section 111 of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'Act of 1994') in those matters, found the demands created against incumbents laconic, and therefore quashed the same. Operative part of the order reads as under:- "In the result, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The impugned demands created against the petitioners by the respondents are quashed. The matter shall stand remanded to the competent authority to pass an appropriate order afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law. The amount already deposited by the petitioners against the demands created, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court or otherwise, shall be subject to final outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the competent authority. If the petitioners are held liable for the loss, if any, caused to the Panchayati Raj Institution, the amount already deposited by them, shall be adjusted against the demand created, if any. Needless to say that if the petitioners are exonerated, the amount, if any, deposited by them or where the demand created against them is found to be less than the amount already deposited by them, the excess amount, shall be refunded to them. No order as to costs."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that the lis involved in present petition is squarely covered by the decision in Har Govind (supra). Alternatively, it is argued by learned counsel that the impugned order itself was served after death of petitioner's husband and therefore same is not enforceable against her. Learned counsel would contend that during lifetime of her husband, he was never subjected to any disciplinary proceedings and as such impugned order is not sustainable.;