Subhash Gupta vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Mr. Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.—This petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 09.10.2009 whereby recovery of an amount of Rs.38,288/- is sought to be effected from the petitioner.

The petitioner was working as Conductor in the respondent/Corporation. The impugned order effecting recovery has been passed on the basis of objections raised in special audit report. It is stated in the special audit report that Rajesh Tyagi, Cashier has misappropriated the amount and recovery should be effected from all the Conductors as well.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner nor was he granted opportunity of hearing before the order was passed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannath Prasad Sharma v. RSRTC & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4167/2010, decided on 04.07.2011 wherein order of recovery from another similarly situated Conductor had been set aside as it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel has further submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner expired on 18.05.2011 and his legal representatives have now been impleaded as the petitioners.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents has contended that recovery is based on the special audit report and the petitioner is also responsible for misappropriation and therefore, the recovery is justified.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition.

Indisputably, the petitioner was neither issued any notice nor was he granted opportunity of hearing before the order of recovery was passed. A perusal of the judgment in the case of Jagannath Prasad Sharma v. RSRTC (supra) reveals that the petitioner therein, who was also working as Conductor with petitioner herein, had been issued notice for recovery without granting him any opportunity of hearing. The coordinate Bench of this Court, while allowing the writ petition, has set aside the recovery. This judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure-1) is quashed and set aside.