Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46359 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8915 of 2025 Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Pushkar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ateeq Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging notice dated 03.03.2025 and 10.07.2025 whereby recovery has been directed from petitioner on the allegation that he was instrumental in excess payment of salary to Government employees resulting in loss to state exchequer. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that although a show cause notice was given to petitioner to which he submitted his reply but there is no discussion with regard to grounds taken by petitioner in his reply. It is also submitted that impugned order places reliance on some preliminary inquiry in which petitioner was not permitted to participate and his reply to the show cause notice has been rejected only on the ground that it was not found satisfactory. 4. Learned State Counsel on the basis of impugned order submits that it has been duly established that petitioner was instrumental in payment of excess salary to employee concerned and therefore, recovery has been effected. It is submitted that ample opportunity was provided to petitioner and he has also submitted his reply which was considered. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order, it is evident that although it makes a reference to reply submitted by petitioner but the same has been brushed aside on the ground that it was found unsatisfactory. No reason has been recorded the impugned order as to why petitioner's reply to the show cause notice was found unsatisfactory. There also does not appear to be any subjective satisfaction recorded by the authority concerned to arrive at a conclusion that it was only petitioner who was instrumental in excess payment of salary. 6. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 and notice dated 03.03.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh but only after affording fresh opportunity of hearing to petitioner and considering his reply to the same. 7. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench