Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11065 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2100 of 2025 Petitioner :- Upendra Nath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Kant Singh,Shubham Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Surya Kant, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Technical Assistant and is presently working in Gram Panchayat Shivpur Moharniya, Rupaideeh, District Bahraich. 3. In the present case on the basis of certain allegations pertaining to conduct of some earthwork between the field of Pillu and Mewa Ram as well as some work in the field of Pahalwan to forest. It was noticed that the amount has been withdrawn but on inspection no work was found to have been conducted and accordingly a decision has been taken to conduct a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and for which purpose the petitioner has also been given show cause notice 4. In the meanwhile, the respondents for the same allegations have also issued an order for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1051492/- from the petitioner by means of order dated 13.01.2025. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the show cause notice as well as recovery order dated 13.01.2025. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false and misconceived inasmuch as the work in the MNREGA scheme is conducted and the amount is paid directly to the bank account of the beneficiaries. He submits that the fact that the petitioner has withdrawn the amount is false even from the scheme as published by the respondents. 6. Further, he submits that in case the order for recovery has already been passed then it is self evident that the matter pertains to a minor penalty for which purposes the petitioner could not have been issued show cause notice. 7. From the perusal of the show cause notice, it is clear that two charges which are levelled against the petitioner find mention in the show cause notice as well as recovery order. 8. A perusal of the said charges indicates that the allegations pertain even to defalcation of funds inasmuch as the petitioner has alleged to have appropriated the said amount. In support of the allegations, certain documents are also available which contains signature of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner on the other hand has vehemently denied that his signatures are false and fabricated and that he was never appropriated the amount as stated by the respondents. 10. Be that as it may, this Court would not go into the veracity of the allegations and the petitioner would have full opportunity to defend himself in a disciplinary proceedings by submitting his reply and other document and material which may indicate that the charges levelled against him are not made out. The petitioner has been given show cause notice with regard to the allegations which find mention in the show cause notice which also include misappropriation of funds. The charge of misappropriate of funds is a serious charge for which purposes the respondents can initiate disciplinary proceedings against any government servant. 11. At this stage, it is not appropriate for this Court to go into the evidence as led by the petitioner as well as by the respondents to come to a conclusion as to whether the charge is false and frivolous or is made out against the petitioner as these are issues which have to be determined during the disciplinary proceedings. 12. On the other hand, this Court finds that the order of recovery has also been passed for the same allegations for which a disciplinary inquiry is underway. 13. Before passing any order of recovery, the respondents should have awaited for the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and in case the charges are made out then the proceedings for recovery could have been initiated against the petitioner but the same cannot be pre-empted prior to conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. 14. In light of the above, without interfering into the show cause notice dated 07.01.2025 this Court provides that no proceedings for recovery shall be undertaken till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The recovery order shall be given effect only when charges against the petitioner are found to be approved. 16. In light of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed. 17. The respondents are expected to conclude the inquiry proceedings expeditiously, say, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The said conclusion of the inquiry is subject to the petitioner cooperating and participating in the said inquiry. In case the inquiry proceedings are concluded the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application under Rule 4(8) of (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench