Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—In this case on 05.12.2009, following order was passed :

“The allegation is that a pond having an area of 0.809 comprised in Plot No. 244 situate in Village Mujdeeha Tehsil Hata District Kushinagar was allotted to respondent No. 6, Narvada on whose behalf Sri A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel, has filed vakalatnama today, on 25.5.2005 for Rs. 2,01,000/-. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 admits this fact and also submits that one fourth of the said amount was deposited by the respondent No. 6 on 13.6.2005. The copy of receipt is Annexure-I (4th receipt) to the writ petition itself. Some further amount was also deposited by respondent No. 6 subsequently copy of receipt of which is Annexure-II to the writ petition. Now in July, 2009, the same pond has again been settled in favour of respondent No. 6 for only Rs. 10,000/- by the S.D.O.

The Court is of the opinion that the S.D.O., who has done it, does not deserve to remain in government service. However, before recommending to the State Government to at once initiate disciplinary proceedings against him after suspending him, it is essential to provide an opportunity of hearing to the S.D.O. concerned. Accor