Hanuman Swami vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—The petitioner, Hanuman Swami S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal Swami, has filed the present writ petition in this Court on 28.08.2014 with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(i) The impugned order dated 24.12.2013 Annex. P/8 and 02.06.2014 Annex. P/10 may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.

(ii) That order Annex. P/4 dated 28.06.2011 and 04.07.2011 Annex. P/5 may also be quashed and if any amount has been recovered on that basis, the same may kindly be directed to be refunded to the petitioner.

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon''ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."

The petitioner has laid a challenge to the impugned order (Annex. P/8) dated 24.12.2013 by which on the basis of Social Audit Report in respect of works execution under the MNREGA Scheme in the Gram Panchayat Pilibanga, District: Hanumangarh, a sum of Rs. 6,91,192/- under the various heads of different works, is sought to be recovered from the petitioner on account of wrong or unauthorized payments made with respect to such contracts executed. Two enquiry reports, namely, (i) Social Audit Wing and (ii) Report of the District Collector, are produced on record as Annex. P/1 dated NIL, and Annex. P/9 dated 17.01.2014 respectively, giving the details of various works and deficiencies found in execution of said works.

Upon receipt of the such reports, the petitioner vide (Annex. P/6) letter dated 24.12.2013 in the capacity of Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Dabli, Panchayat Samiti-Pilibanga, gave his explanation to the Development Officer of the Panchayat Samiti in the following manner:-

After the so-called explanation was received by the Development Officer, the said authority has passed the impugned order (Annex. P/8) dated 24.12.2013. The learned District Collector, Hanumangarh, also reiterating those findings in the impugned communication (Annex. P/9) dated 17.01.2014 has discussed the said issue with regard to the petitioner as under:-

Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said recovery is sought to be made from the petitioner under the order (Annex. P/8) dated 24.12.2013 from the salary of the petitioner and specifically vide order (Annex. P/10) dated 02.06.2014, the same is now sought to be recovered from the petitioner''s salary.

Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Sen Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, and the order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Sohan Lal Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11998/2010 decided on 20.01.2014), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such recovery cannot be made without holding an enquiry in the matter as per Rule 14 read with Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, this Court is satisfied that no interference is called for in the impugned order (Annex. P/8) dated 24.12.2013 and the order (Annex. P/10) dated 02.06.2014 and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Several questions of facts are involved in the present case and two enquiry reports have already been placed on record, on which the petitioner was called to give his explanation. The explanation furnished by the petitioner is vague and bald one, as no details of the works executed under his tenure or supervision has been explained by the petitioner while he was working as ''Gram-Sevak'' in the said Gram Panchayat. Such vague explanation did not establish anything specific in relation to works executed and on the basis of so-called explanation, the petitioner cannot be invoke the writ jurisdiction to stall such recovery, which is sought to be made on the basis of Social Audit Report and the enquiry report furnished by the District Collector.

The writ jurisdiction is wholly misconceived to be invoked in such cases. It is for the petitioner to furnish his due explanation along-with relevant evidence before the concerned authority, who could decide such disputed questions of facts by way of holding further enquiry, if any necessary, after hearing the petitioner.

In view of above discussion, the present writ petition is found to be bereft of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.