Anand Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. and Others), in which on

1. Heard Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Village Panchayat Secretary/ Village Panchayat Officer in the year 2017. Owing to certain act in the omissions so sought to be alleged resulting to tarnishing of the image and sustaining of the loss by the State Government, show cause notices came to be issued twice, which is taken to have been replied by the writ petitioner and on 20.02.2025, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension which was subject matter of challenge in Writ-A No.2928 of 2025 (Anand Kumar Soni vs. State of U.P. and Others), in which on

07.03.2025, an interim protection was accorded. Thereafter, a private complaint stood lodged and a team was constituted of the officers of respondents regarding illegal allotment of 36 houses to which by one Shri Suresh Shreevastav vs. State of U.P. for concluding the proceedings. Thereafter, now on 04.09.2025, an order has been passed by the Chief Development Officer, Lalitpur, third respondent making a recovery of an amount of Rs. 32,40,000/- from the writ petitioner, the then Gram Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Maholi, Vikas Khand Birdha.

3. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the first and the foremost question which goes to the root of the matter which is fundamental and crucial, is the fact that before passing the impugned order dated 04.09.2025, neither the writ petitioner was put to notice nor he was 2 WRIA No. 14901 of 2025 heard and the said action is a unilateral action. Reference in this regard is made to paragraph no.6 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that in case, there was any deficiency or act of an omission, then the employer is not precluded from effectuating recovery, but one of the condition precedent would be that the said recovery can only be effectuated provided the aggrieved person is put to notice.

5. This Court entertained the writ petition on 13.10.2025 and sought instructions. Today, Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions under the signature of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Lalitpur dated 14.10.2025, which are taken on record as Appendix 'A'.

6. Shri Rahul Malviya has submitted that the instructions are self-sufficient and he is in a position to argue the matter on the basis of the instructions. He has contended that the writ petitioner was put to notice on 21.03.2024 and reply was submitted by the writ petitioner on 05.04.2024 and thereafter, the order came to be passed.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record.

8. Apparently, the order impugned is dated 04.09.2025 passed by the third respondent, Chief Development Officer, Lalitpur. A bare look of the said order would reveal that the same is premised upon a finding of an inquiry report dated 03.06.2025. Thus, the crucial question would be that any exercise undertaken by the respondents while issuing show cause notice on

21.03.2024 and submission of reply on 05.04.2024 would whether be germane or not.

9. Answer is in negative particularly, when post receipt of the inquiry report on 03.06.2025, the writ petitioner ought to have been put to notice thereafter any notice anterior to the date 03.06.2025, which happens to be the inquiry report, would not be a ground to hold that there has been substantial compliance of the natural justice. Even otherwise, the order impugned does not recite that the writ petitioner was put to notice or he despite receipt of notice did not tender his reply. In Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 154, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 3 has observed as under: "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's 3 WRIA No. 14901 of 2025 basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 pan. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991. which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970."

10. Since the aforesaid exercise is completely lacking, thus, this Court has no option but to set aside the order. Accordingly, the writ petition is decided in the following terms. (a) The order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the third respondent, Chief Development Officer, Lalitpur as well as consequential order dated

10.09.2025 passed by second respondent is set aside. (b) The matter stands remitted back to the third respondent to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, after compliance of natural justice. (c) For facilitation in early disposal, certified copy of the order along with self-attested copy of the writ petition be submitted by 31st October, 2025.

11. The writ petition is disposed of.

12. The passing of the order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has entered into merits of the matter as the order in question has been set aside on the ground of principles of natural justice. October 16, 2025 Gurpreet Singh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Village Panchayat Secretary/ Village Panchayat Officer in the year 2017. Owing to certain act in the omissions so sought to be alleged resulting to tarnishing of the image and sustaining of the loss by the State Government, show cause notices came to be issued twice, which is taken to have been replied by the writ petitioner and on 20.02.2025, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension which was subject matter of challenge in Writ-A No.2928 of 2025 (Anand Kumar Soni vs. State of U.P. and Others), in which on

07.03.2025, an interim protection was accorded. Thereafter, a private complaint stood lodged and a team was constituted of the officers of respondents regarding illegal allotment of 36 houses to which by one Shri Suresh Shreevastav vs. State of U.P. for concluding the proceedings. Thereafter, now on 04.09.2025, an order has been passed by the Chief Development Officer, Lalitpur, third respondent making a recovery of an amount of Rs. 32,40,000/- from the writ petitioner, the then Gram Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Maholi, Vikas Khand Birdha.

3. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the first and the foremost question which goes to the root of the matter which is fundamental and crucial, is the fact that before passing the impugned order dated 04.09.2025, neither the writ petitioner was put to notice nor he was 2 WRIA No. 14901 of 2025 heard and the said action is a unilateral action. Reference in this regard is made to paragraph no.6 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that in case, there was any deficiency or act of an omission, then the employer is not precluded from effectuating recovery, but one of the condition precedent would be that the said recovery can only be effectuated provided the aggrieved person is put to notice.

5. This Court entertained the writ petition on 13.10.2025 and sought instructions. Today, Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions under the signature of District Panchayat Raj Officer, Lalitpur dated 14.10.2025, which are taken on record as Appendix 'A'.

6. Shri Rahul Malviya has submitted that the instructions are self-sufficient and he is in a position to argue the matter on the basis of the instructions. He has contended that the writ petitioner was put to notice on 21.03.2024 and reply was submitted by the writ petitioner on 05.04.2024 and thereafter, the order came to be passed.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record.

8. Apparently, the order impugned is dated 04.09.2025 passed by the third respondent, Chief Development Officer, Lalitpur. A bare look of the said order would reveal that the same is premised upon a finding of an inquiry report dated 03.06.2025. Thus, the crucial question would be that any exercise undertaken by the respondents while issuing show cause notice on

21.03.2024 and submission of reply on 05.04.2024 would whether be germane or not.

9. Answer is in negative particularly, when post receipt of the inquiry report on 03.06.2025, the writ petitioner ought to have been put to notice thereafter any notice anterior to the date 03.06.2025, which happens to be the inquiry report, would not be a ground to hold that there has been substantial compliance of the natural justice. Even otherwise, the order impugned does not recite that the writ petitioner was put to notice or he despite receipt of notice did not tender his reply. In Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 154, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 3 has observed as under: "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's 3 WRIA No. 14901 of 2025 basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs. 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 pan. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991. which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12.1970."

10. Since the aforesaid exercise is completely lacking, thus, this Court has no option but to set aside the order. Accordingly, the writ petition is decided in the following terms. (a) The order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the third respondent, Chief Development Officer, Lalitpur as well as consequential order dated

10.09.2025 passed by second respondent is set aside. (b) The matter stands remitted back to the third respondent to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, after compliance of natural justice. (c) For facilitation in early disposal, certified copy of the order along with self-attested copy of the writ petition be submitted by 31st October, 2025.

11. The writ petition is disposed of.

12. The passing of the order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has entered into merits of the matter as the order in question has been set aside on the ground of principles of natural justice. October 16, 2025 Gurpreet Singh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad