[2025:RJ-JP:1122] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8129/2019 1. Mrs. Pinki Bairwa W/o Shri Mukesh Bairwa, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Devpura, Panchayat Devpura, Village And Post Arnia Kedar, District Tonk 2. Gulab Chand Bairwa S/o Shri Gopi Lal Bairwa, R/o 1/203, Housing Board, Tonk ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur 2. Executive Engineer (Ja) Sa, Zila Parishad Tonk 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Tonk 4. Assistant Accounts Officer Second, Zila Parishad Tonk 5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Tonk District Tonk ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajiv Bandhu For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 08/01/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of notice dated 23.08.2018 issued by Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Tonk, District Tonk. 2. The brief facts are that petitioner No.1 was an elected Sarpanch of village Devpura, Panchayat Devpura, District Tonk and petitioner No.2 was appointed as Secretary and had retired on 31.12.2017. Impugned notice dated 23.08.2018 was issued by the respondents alleging that in road lights installed under the FFC Scheme, there was financial irregularity and the petitioners have [2025:RJ-JP:1122] (2 of 2) [CW-8129/2019] embezzled the amount. The committee constituted for enquiry concluded that there was excess payment of Rs.5,95,846/- and the same is recoverable. In pursuance to the enquiry report, the impugned notice was issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither opportunity of hearing was granted nor order creating the demand was passed yet, the notice was issued. It is further argued that on the one hand, explanation of the petitioner vis-a-vis the enquiry report was sought and at the same time the petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the due amount along with interest @ 18%. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that prior to issuance of impugned notice, two communications were also addressed to the petitioner and as per the enquiry report, amount was embezzled was done by the petitioners. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings. 6. It is an undisputed fact that impugned notice has been issued without the competent authority passing an order on the basis of the enquiry report and creating the demand. Consequently, the petition is allowed. 7. The impugned notice shall be treated by the respondent as a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. The petitioner shall file a response to the notice within six weeks from today and thereafter, the respondent shall proceed in accordance with law. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/76 Reportable: Yes