[2025:RJ-JP:11805] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21947/2018 1. Mahendra Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Nandram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Kanak Vihar, Gopalpura Road, Kotputli, District Jaipur 2. Narendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ghansi Ram Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Laxman Vihar, Near Raghuvanshi School, Aamai, Kotputli, District Jaipur 3. Rupendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bheekha Rama Arya, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Buchaheda, Ward No. 21, Nagaji Ki Gaur, Kotputli, Jaipur 4. Muarai Lal Sharma S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Vpo Goverdhanpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur 5. Kaptan Singh S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Aamai, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur 6. Ashok Kumar Singh S/o Shri Lal Bahadur Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 62, Vikas Nagar, C, Dadi Ka Phatak, Near Railway Bridge, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur 3. The Development Officer And Programme Officer, Panchayat Samiti Kotputli, District Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajendra Vaish For Respondent(s) : Mr.Aditya Sharma for Mr.Kesar Singh Shekhawat, Addl.GC. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/03/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 28.08.2018 by which the petitioners have been held guilty for negligence in discharge of their duties and accordingly, the recovery order has been issued against them to deposit a sum of Rs.1,78,319.70/- with interest. [2025:RJ-JP:11805] (2 of 3) [CW-21947/2018] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a theft of solar articles took place which were lying in the Office of the Gram Panchayat for which the petitioners lodged an FIR No.147/2013 with Police Station Kotputali, District Jaipur (Rural). Counsel submits that without holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, straightaway the order impugned has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice, hence, the aforesaid order is not tenable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Counsel submits that at the relevant time, when the incident took place, there was no policy of the State for posting any security guard at Panchayat Bhawan, the policy came at subsequent stage, hence, under these circumstances, there is no negligence on the part of the petitioners which warranted the order impugned. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submits that there was negligence on the part of the petitioners, that is why, the theft has taken place and accordingly, a decision was taken to recover the amount of stolen articles from the petitioners by passing the order impugned dated 28.08.2018. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that certain solar articles were stolen from the Rajeev Gandhi Seva Kendra and at the relevant time, the petitioners were posted there at Gram Panchayat, Kawarpura as Gram Sewak. This fact is not in dispute that [2025:RJ-JP:11805] (3 of 3) [CW-21947/2018] immediately after the aforesaid incident, the FIR No.147/2013 was registered by the petitioners with the concerned Police Station. It appears that without taking note of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter and without conducting any enquiry against the petitioners, straightaway the order impugned has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. It is a settled proposition of law that if any adverse order is passed against any person, an enquiry is required to be conducted, but in the instant matter, no such enquiry has been conducted and straightaway, the order impugned has been passed, hence, on this count alone, the impugned order dated 28.08.2018 is not sustainable in the eye of law and thus, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. The present writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 28.08.2018 stands quashed and set-aside. 7. Needless to observe that the respondents would be at liberty to hold enquiry against the petitioners in accordance with law and pass fresh orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/60