[2025:RJ-JP:47296] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12361/2025 Shabeena Parveen D/o Sh. Jalal Mohammad, Aged About 35 Years, R/o B-21, In Back Of Rto Office, Chatarpura, Kota Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector And District Program Coordinator, Bundi (Mnrega Rajasthan) 3. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad Bundi. 4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Keshoraipatan, Distt. Bundi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajid Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Sharma for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 20/11/2025 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioners with following prayer: “The finding of Inquiry report and the recovery notice dated 17.03.2025 issued to the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while placing reliance upon order dated 09.09.2025 in SB CWP No.11614/2025 titled as Ramraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [2025:RJ-JP:47296] (2 of 3) [CW-12361/2025] submits that petitioner was appointed on post of Junior Technical Assistant on contract basis by order dated 29.09.2010 and by order dated 15.01.2025, she was transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Talera to Panchayat Samiti, K. Patan (Bundi). He further submitted that by order dated 17.03.2025, an order of recovery was issud against petitioner to recover ₹65309/- with interest of 18% p.a. He further submitted that no inquiry was conducted by the respondents before assessment of loss and without any enquiry, recovery order has been issued assuming the role and involvement of present petitioner. He also submitted that in identical circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the order of recovery issued without opportunity of hearing and enquiry. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents and submitted that after enquiry, notice is served upon petitioner to show case and only after opportunity, recovery notice was issued. 4. Considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. It is apparent on record on basis of that a complaint about substandard work carried out in MNREGA Scheme, an enquiry committee was constituted by Zila Parishad and on the basis of report, notice was issued on 24.06.2024 to show cause but no enquiry was conducted after receipt of reply and recovery process was initiated. A Co-ordinate Bench in case of Ramraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) has set aside the recovery order and directed the [2025:RJ-JP:47296] (3 of 3) [CW-12361/2025] respondents to initiate action in accordance with law following the principle of natural justice. 6. It is apparent on record, that neither any enquiry was instituted after service of show cause nor a specific assessment was made after following principle of natural justice, the recovery notice is not sufficient to recover the amount as mentioned therein. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be allowed with liberty to the respondents to conduct an enquiry in accordance with rules. 7. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of in following terms: (i) The impugned order dated 17.03.2025, recovery notice for recovery is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are at liberty to institute an enquiry in accordance with rules following the principle of natural justice. 8. Accordingly, instant writ petition along with pending application, if any, disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /188