Allahabad High Court
WRIA/14030/2026 of ROHIT KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS on 7 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14030 of 2026 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.8.2026 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,86,613.64/- from the petitioner. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14030 of 2026
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.8.2026 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,86,613.64/- from the petitioner.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said order has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner and the same is in violation of the principle of natural justice.
3. By the previous order dated 8th September 2026, this Court has directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to whether any notice was given to the petitioner or not before passing the order of recovery.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has placed the instructions which are taken on record and on the basis of instructions, it has been submitted by learned Standing Counsel that before passing the order of recovery dated 8th September 2026, no notice was given to the petitioner.
5. An order of recovery is an order having civil consequences and, therefore, the same cannot be passed without issuing notice in violation of the principle of natural justice, and in view of the admitted position that no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the order dated 17.08.2026 directing for recovery, the said order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed, and accordingly the order dated 17.08.2026 passed by respondent no.3 is quashed with liberty to respondent no.3 to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if he so desires, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gunjan Sharma, Namit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rohit Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
6. The another order under challenge is order dated 17.08.2026 passed by respondent no.4 by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge sheet has not been given to the petitioner.
7. Considering the allegations, it would be appropriate that respondent no.4 may issue charge sheet to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 10 days and in case charge sheet is issued, petitioner may file his reply within three weeks thereafter. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 shall make every endeavor to conclude the departmental proceedings against the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law.
8. The writ petition is allowed in part. October 8, 2026 Kumar Manish WRIA No. 14030 of 2026 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad