Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86033 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59189 of 2015 Petitioner :- Rana Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Bhanu Pratap Singh,C.S.C.,Ravindra Nath Yadav Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Brijendra Mani Shukla, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Petitioner and respondent-5 were suffered with an inquiry and on allegations of financial embezzlement, by order dated 23.07.2011, financial liability of Rs. 55,314/- was imposed on petitioner and he was reinstated in service with further punishment of stoppage of one financial increment and financial liability of Rs. 1,44,614/- was imposed on respondent-5. 3. It appears that with challenging to order dated 23.07.2011, respondent-5 has filed a representation and on basis of it, a fresh inquiry was conducted wherein undisputedly, petitioner was not called for participation and inquiry report dated 16.04.2013 was submitted and by order dated 21.06.2013, financial liability of respondent-5 was denied and entire financial liability was imposed on petitioner i.e. the petitioner has to pay further Rs. 1,44,614/-. 4. It is not disputed that earlier financial liability of Rs. 55,314/- was paid by petitioner. 5. Aforesaid order dated 21.06.2013 is impugned in present writ petition and this Court has passed following order on 15.10.2015 :- “It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the District Basic Education Officer i.e. the third respondent has previously passed an order dated 23rd July, 2011 wherein on the basis of the enquiry he found that the petitioner's liability is only to the extent of Rs. 55314/- in respect of the loss caused to the State Exchequer. It is stated that in compliance of the said order dated 23rd July, 2011 the petitioner has deposited the entire amount i.e. Rs. 55314/-. The said order also recites that rest of the amount be recovered from the fifth respondent. However, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the said order has been reviewed / recalled by the third respondent, under which he has fastened the entire liability on the petitioner and has spared the fifth respondent. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the third respondent does not have any authority to review his earlier order without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph nos. 20, 21 & 22 of the writ petition wherein the petitioner has averred that the said order has been passed without affording any opportunity. Matter needs consideration. Learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. List this case on 21st December, 2015. Till the next date of listing the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 21st June, 2013 shall remain stayed. It is made clear that this order will not cause any impediment if the concerned authority takes decision to complete the enquiry in respect of the loss caused to the State Exchequer against the fifth respondent. ” 6. Meanwhile, petitioner filed another writ petition being Writ A No. 20600/2016 for payment of retiral benefits. Said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.05.2016 to consider claim of petitioner. However, claim of petitioner was rejected vide order dated 19.08.2016 mainly on basis of order dated 21.06.2013 which is impugned in this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since petitioner was not issued notice and second inquiry was conducted ex-parte, therefore, no liability could be imposed on petitioner as it will be contrary to principles of natural justice. 8. Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents have opposed above submissions and submitted that since by a proper inquiry, it was found that respondent-5 has not committed any financial embezzlement and since it was further found that petitioner was responsible, therefore, liability of Rs. 1,44,614/- was also imposed upon petitioner. 9. I have considered above submissions and perused the records. 10. As referred above, petitioner and respondent-5 have suffered with a punishment order so far as payment of financial liability is concerned and petitioner has deposited Rs. 55,314/- and remaining financial liability of Rs. 1,44,614/- was imposed on respondent-5. The respondent-5 has submitted a representation and in pursuance of said representation, a fresh inquiry was conducted and burden was shifted upon petitioner and entire liability was imposed upon petitioner. The order dated 23.07.2011 was not challenged on behalf of respondent-5. 11. In aforesaid circumstances, since additional financial liability was imposed without giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner, therefore, order dated 21.06.2013 is set aside and its legal consequence shall follow. 12. However, this order will not come in the way if the petitioner is put on fresh notice, however, at this stage, it has to be taken note that petitioner has retired way back in the year 2015 i.e. a decade ago. 13. Considering aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 19.08.2016 impugned in Writ A No. 50584/2016 is also set aside and its legal consequence shall follow. 14. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 N. Sinha Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad