High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri J.P.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate/ District Program Coordinator, District Mau and the consequential order passed by Chief Development Officer on 08.04.2025.

3. The short point argued before the Court is that once the petitioner was issued with show cause notice and he submitted reply, the reply ought to have given due consideration by the competent authority while passing the order on 08.04.2025, however, the authority in the order impugned just referred to the reply given by the petitioner on 08.05.2024 and returned a finding that reply was not found satisfactory.

4. In order to appreciate the relevant paragraphs of the order is reproduced hereunder: "कቌኔ्ቔ पपंचचायत-ददोहररीघचाट दचारचा करचायቌኔ गयቌኔ 473 कचायरपं ककी जचापंच हቌኔततु शरी सपंदरीप रचाय पतु्ቔ शरी रचामजरी रचाय, गचाम-धननौलरीरचामपतुर, कቌኔ्ቔ पपंचचायत-ददोहररीघचाट, जनपद-मऊ कቌኔ स्तर सቌኔ ककी गयरी शशिकचायत ककी जचापंच टरी०ए०सरी० आजमगढ़ मण्डल , आजमगढ़ दचारचा जचापंच कर , जचापंच आख्यचा अपनቌኔ प्ቔ सपंख्यचा 253 शदनचापंक 14 ससतम्बर, 2023 दचारचा मतुख्य पचाशविसधक पररीकक, एपቌኔक्स टरी०ए०सरी०, गचाम्य शविकचास उ०प०, लखनऊ कदो पቌኔशषित ककी गयरी। उक जचााምच आख्यचा आयतुक, गचाम्य शविकचास उ०प०, लखनऊ कቌኔ प्ቔ सपंख्यचा 42/मनरቌኔगचा सቌኔल/शशि०-टरी०ए०सरी०-18015/2023-24 शदनचापंक 09 जनविररी, 2024 दचारचा कचायरविचाहरी शकयቌኔ जचानቌኔ हቌኔततु पचा्቎ हहई। टरी०ए०सरी० ककी जचापंच आख्यचा कቌኔ अनतुसचार 01 कचायर मनरቌኔगचा यदोजनचान्तगरत "गचामपपंचचायत-गदोठचा कቌኔ रचामलरीलचा ममैदचान मम इण्टरललॉशकपंग कचायर पर रू० 4,62,846.00 ककी शवितरीय गबन/कशत पचायरी गयरी। उक धनरचाशशि कቌኔ सम्बपंध मम शरी असखलቌኔशि श्ቔपचाठरी, तकनरीककी सहचायक सቌኔ सतुसपंगत सचाቌኚयोሱ सशहत 15 शदविस कቌኔ अन्दर अधदोहस्तचाकररी कቌኔ कचायचारलय प्ቔ सपंख्यचा 71 शदनचापंक 30 अपमैल, 2024 कቌኔ मचाध्यम सቌኔ स्पषरीकरण ककी मचापंग शकयचा गयचा। तद््ቅम मम शरी असखलशि श्ቔपचाठरी, तकनरीककी सहचायक दचारचा अपनचा स्पषरीकरण शदनचापंक 08-05-2024 कदो पस्ततुत शकयचा गयचा, जदो सपंतदोषिजनक नहह पचायचा गयचा। उनकቌኔ दचारचा अपनቌኔ बचचावि मम कदोई तथ्य अथविचा सचाቌኚय पस्ततुत नहह शकयचा गयचा , सजससቌኔ शक उनककी शनदरशषितचा सस्ቍ हदो सकቌኔ ।"

5. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary argued that there are certain matters where the authority may have a subjective satisfaction with regard to the reply submitted by the employee and therefore, the authorities are not required to go into the details of the reply submitted. The explanation offered if found not satisfactory, the authority would certainly not be under obligation to refer the same in detail and hence there was no error in the order passed. He tried to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice on 30.04.2024 giving specific charge referable to the inquiry regarding financial irregularities to the tune of Rs. 4,30,888/- in carrying out some development work in terms of being interlocking road. This show cause notice with a specific charge came to be replied by the petitioner on 08.05.2024 in which he categorically stated that the entire work was carried out as per Manrega scheme and the Incharge Girish Chandra Srivastava, Senior Assistant Development Officer of development block Dohri Ghat was supervisory authority. He was only to carry out the task of filling of Muster Roll and still further according to him the assessment of work was done only upon verification report submitted by Block Development Officer and it was found that the work carried out was up to mark. It is also stated that the preliminary fact finding inquiry that was conducted in the matter, petitioner was never associated with same and the charge leveled against him for misappropriation of fund to the tune of Rs. 4,62,846/- was absolutely baseless. According to the reply, the ex parte report could not have been relied upon. This reply, I find to have been mentioned in the order impugned dated 11.03.2025, as reply submitted and without discussing the same, the entire reply has been brushed aside by one line order that it was not satisfactory.

7. In my considered view, such approach by the authority, who is a Government Official, cannot be approved of. In so far as the principles of natural justice is concerned even in matters of summary inquiry, if a delinquent employee is not associated with then his reply has to be accorded due consideration. Whatever the defence has been taken as quoted above from the reply of the petitioner finds no whisper in the order impugned and hence may be a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and reply was mentioned in the order impugned but this was only it appears by way of a sheer formality. This therefore, cannot be said to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice where reasonableness is a hall mark of giving opportunity to the party aggrieved. In Mullan's theory of natural justice the Professor has very categorically interpreted the principles as under:

8. Mullan in "Natural Justice and Fairness" writes: ".......This did not go far enough; the old law relating to natural justice was too rigidly entrenched. More importantly, the issues were now somewhat more sophisticated, and it was recognized that it was not a case of all or nothing. Some decision making functions, while not requiring full adjudicative hearings, might nevertheless have usefully had certain participatory obligations or perhaps simply an obligation of "proper" consideration attached to them. Out of this predicament emerged the new vocabulary of the duty to act fairly. This was not in any sense the result of a growing feeling on the part of the courts that the time had come to assert a general review power over the wisdom of administrative decision-making, even though the subsequent conduct of one of the principal proponents of procedural "fairness" review, Lord Denning M.R., might suggest that this was indeed the case. It can best be viewed as a reaction to a particular problem in a particular area of judicial review. Hence it is ironic, though not perhaps surprising, to now see the emergence of fairness in the substantive law of judicial review as a standard for judging the merits of administrative decision-making........ . (1982) 27 McGill L.J. 273."

9. In view of the above and applying the above test the order impugned herein in this petition, I do not find the said order dated 11.03.2025 to be sustainable and so also the consequential order passed by the Chief Development Officer dated 08.04.2025. Both the orders are accordingly hereby quashed with all consequential benefits. Liberty rests with the respondents to pass order afresh considering the reply already submitted by the petitioner within a further period of two months, if they so desire.

10. Writ petition thus allowed in aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 IrfanUddin IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri J.P.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate/ District Program Coordinator, District Mau and the consequential order passed by Chief Development Officer on 08.04.2025.

3. The short point argued before the Court is that once the petitioner was issued with show cause notice and he submitted reply, the reply ought to have given due consideration by the competent authority while passing the order on 08.04.2025, however, the authority in the order impugned just referred to the reply given by the petitioner on 08.05.2024 and returned a finding that reply was not found satisfactory.

4. In order to appreciate the relevant paragraphs of the order is reproduced hereunder: "कቌኔ्ቔ पपंचचायत-ददोहररीघचाट दचारचा करचायቌኔ गयቌኔ 473 कचायरपं ककी जचापंच हቌኔततु शरी सपंदरीप रचाय पतु्ቔ शरी रचामजरी रचाय, गचाम-धननौलरीरचामपतुर, कቌኔ्ቔ पपंचचायत-ददोहररीघचाट, जनपद-मऊ कቌኔ स्तर सቌኔ ककी गयरी शशिकचायत ककी जचापंच टरी०ए०सरी० आजमगढ़ मण्डल , आजमगढ़ दचारचा जचापंच कर , जचापंच आख्यचा अपनቌኔ प्ቔ सपंख्यचा 253 शदनचापंक 14 ससतम्बर, 2023 दचारचा मतुख्य पचाशविसधक पररीकक, एपቌኔक्स टरी०ए०सरी०, गचाम्य शविकचास उ०प०, लखनऊ कदो पቌኔशषित ककी गयरी। उक जचााምच आख्यचा आयतुक, गचाम्य शविकचास उ०प०, लखनऊ कቌኔ प्ቔ सपंख्यचा 42/मनरቌኔगचा सቌኔल/शशि०-टरी०ए०सरी०-18015/2023-24 शदनचापंक 09 जनविररी, 2024 दचारचा कचायरविचाहरी शकयቌኔ जचानቌኔ हቌኔततु पचा्቎ हहई। टरी०ए०सरी० ककी जचापंच आख्यचा कቌኔ अनतुसचार 01 कचायर मनरቌኔगचा यदोजनचान्तगरत "गचामपपंचचायत-गदोठचा कቌኔ रचामलरीलचा ममैदचान मम इण्टरललॉशकपंग कचायर पर रू० 4,62,846.00 ककी शवितरीय गबन/कशत पचायरी गयरी। उक धनरचाशशि कቌኔ सम्बपंध मम शरी असखलቌኔशि श्ቔपचाठरी, तकनरीककी सहचायक सቌኔ सतुसपंगत सचाቌኚयोሱ सशहत 15 शदविस कቌኔ अन्दर अधदोहस्तचाकररी कቌኔ कचायचारलय प्ቔ सपंख्यचा 71 शदनचापंक 30 अपमैल, 2024 कቌኔ मचाध्यम सቌኔ स्पषरीकरण ककी मचापंग शकयचा गयचा। तद््ቅम मम शरी असखलशि श्ቔपचाठरी, तकनरीककी सहचायक दचारचा अपनचा स्पषरीकरण शदनचापंक 08-05-2024 कदो पस्ततुत शकयचा गयचा, जदो सपंतदोषिजनक नहह पचायचा गयचा। उनकቌኔ दचारचा अपनቌኔ बचचावि मम कदोई तथ्य अथविचा सचाቌኚय पस्ततुत नहह शकयचा गयचा , सजससቌኔ शक उनककी शनदरशषितचा सस्ቍ हदो सकቌኔ ।"

5. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary argued that there are certain matters where the authority may have a subjective satisfaction with regard to the reply submitted by the employee and therefore, the authorities are not required to go into the details of the reply submitted. The explanation offered if found not satisfactory, the authority would certainly not be under obligation to refer the same in detail and hence there was no error in the order passed. He tried to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice on 30.04.2024 giving specific charge referable to the inquiry regarding financial irregularities to the tune of Rs. 4,30,888/- in carrying out some development work in terms of being interlocking road. This show cause notice with a specific charge came to be replied by the petitioner on 08.05.2024 in which he categorically stated that the entire work was carried out as per Manrega scheme and the Incharge Girish Chandra Srivastava, Senior Assistant Development Officer of development block Dohri Ghat was supervisory authority. He was only to carry out the task of filling of Muster Roll and still further according to him the assessment of work was done only upon verification report submitted by Block Development Officer and it was found that the work carried out was up to mark. It is also stated that the preliminary fact finding inquiry that was conducted in the matter, petitioner was never associated with same and the charge leveled against him for misappropriation of fund to the tune of Rs. 4,62,846/- was absolutely baseless. According to the reply, the ex parte report could not have been relied upon. This reply, I find to have been mentioned in the order impugned dated 11.03.2025, as reply submitted and without discussing the same, the entire reply has been brushed aside by one line order that it was not satisfactory.

7. In my considered view, such approach by the authority, who is a Government Official, cannot be approved of. In so far as the principles of natural justice is concerned even in matters of summary inquiry, if a delinquent employee is not associated with then his reply has to be accorded due consideration. Whatever the defence has been taken as quoted above from the reply of the petitioner finds no whisper in the order impugned and hence may be a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and reply was mentioned in the order impugned but this was only it appears by way of a sheer formality. This therefore, cannot be said to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice where reasonableness is a hall mark of giving opportunity to the party aggrieved. In Mullan's theory of natural justice the Professor has very categorically interpreted the principles as under:

8. Mullan in "Natural Justice and Fairness" writes: ".......This did not go far enough; the old law relating to natural justice was too rigidly entrenched. More importantly, the issues were now somewhat more sophisticated, and it was recognized that it was not a case of all or nothing. Some decision making functions, while not requiring full adjudicative hearings, might nevertheless have usefully had certain participatory obligations or perhaps simply an obligation of "proper" consideration attached to them. Out of this predicament emerged the new vocabulary of the duty to act fairly. This was not in any sense the result of a growing feeling on the part of the courts that the time had come to assert a general review power over the wisdom of administrative decision-making, even though the subsequent conduct of one of the principal proponents of procedural "fairness" review, Lord Denning M.R., might suggest that this was indeed the case. It can best be viewed as a reaction to a particular problem in a particular area of judicial review. Hence it is ironic, though not perhaps surprising, to now see the emergence of fairness in the substantive law of judicial review as a standard for judging the merits of administrative decision-making........ . (1982) 27 McGill L.J. 273."

9. In view of the above and applying the above test the order impugned herein in this petition, I do not find the said order dated 11.03.2025 to be sustainable and so also the consequential order passed by the Chief Development Officer dated 08.04.2025. Both the orders are accordingly hereby quashed with all consequential benefits. Liberty rests with the respondents to pass order afresh considering the reply already submitted by the petitioner within a further period of two months, if they so desire.

10. Writ petition thus allowed in aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 IrfanUddin IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad