IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures and principles of natural justice in administrative inquiries, quashing the recovery order due to jurisdictional flaws.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri Rakshit Raj Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel representing the State - respondents.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of a recovery notice dated 06.12.2005 issued by the District Magistrate, Lucknow and recovery citation dated 07.01.2006 issued by the Tahsildar, Mohanlalganj, as also a notice dated 08.09.2005 issued by the District Magistrate, along with the entire proceedings initiated on the basis of an inquiry report dated 25.04.2005 submitted by an inquiry committee consisting of Chief Development Officer, Unnao, Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Unnao and District Panchayat Raj Officer, Unnao.

3. On 08.09.2005, the District Magistrate, Lucknow had issued a notice under Rule 256 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 stating that the Government had constituted a three member inquiry committee consisting of the Chief Development Officer, Unnao, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Unnao and Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Unnao to inquire into the works conducted in village Panchayat Samesi during the year 2003-04 and 2004-05.

4. The inquiry committee submitted a report stating that the petitioner was guilty of misappropriation of Rs.5,10,212/-, half of which amounting to Rs.2,55,106/- was to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation in this regard, failing which an ex parte order would be passed for recovery of the amount from the petitioner. This letter was accompanied by a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the three members committee. It mentions the date of inspection to be 25.04.2005 but the date of report is not mentioned therein. A perusal of the report indicates that it makes no mention that the inspection was carried out in presence of the petitioner or after giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

5. On 21.10.2005, the applicant gave a letter to the Block Development Officer stating that all the meetings of Gram Panchayat and its committee were conducted as per the Rules. The works had been conducted as per the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat. The entire records about the resolutions, the projects and the expenditures etc. are available in the office.

6. On 21.11.2005, the petitioner gave another letter to the Block Development Officer, Mohanlalganj stating that the entire relevant records were available with the Secretary of Gram Panchayat and he prayed for being permitted to inspect the records and for being provided a copy thereof to enable him to submit his reply. The petitioner stated that as the records were with Secretary of Village Panchayat and not with him, he could not submit a reply, unless he was provided a copy of the records.

7. On 06.12.2005, the District Magistrate, Lucknow passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his explanation by means of a notice dated 08.09.2005. The petitioner submitted an undated explanation which has not been found to be satisfactory, from which it appears that the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,10,212/- and half of it i.e. Rs.2,55,106/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. Accordingly the Tahsildar has issued a recovery citation.

8. Sri. Rakshit Raj Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statutory provision regarding recovery of surcharge contained in Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the procedure therefor prescribed by Rules 256 and 257 of the 1947 Rules has not been followed in the present case, which vitiates the impugned recovery order and recovery citation.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 861 = AIR 2023 All 26