WP(C) No.1619/2022 1 | P a g e Sr. No.8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CJ Court WP(C) No.1619/2022 MOHAMMAD SHARIEF WANI ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Zaffar Mehdi, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Ms. Rahella Khan, Assisting Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE JUDGMENT 18.08.2025 1) The petitioner along with two other officials was vested with the responsibility of providing assistance for construction of house under the scheme commonly known as “Indra Awas Yojna”. During the process, a complaint was lodged by respondent No.5 against the petitioner and other two officials stating therein that the financial assistance was provided to 43 persons in gross violation of rules in vogue. A committee was constituted and it was found by the Committee that the financial assistance was provided to eleven persons who were not eligible. Acting upon the observations/conclusion of the Committee, a show cause notice dated 20.05.2009 was issued to the petitioner, which WP(C) No.1619/2022 2 | P a g e the petitioner claims was never served upon him and thereafter vide order dated 31.07.2009, an opportunity was provided to the petitioner by the respondents to explain his position with regard to wrongful financial assistance granted to eleven beneficiaries, which was responded to by the petitioner and vide order dated 01.09.2009, the respondent No.2 directed the recovery of an amount of Rs.2.90 lacs from Abdul Rashid Mir (I/C Block Development Officer, Khansahib), Bashir Ahamd Gazi (Panchayat Inspector, Block Khansahib) and the petitioner in the ratio of 15%, 25% and 60% proportionately. Further vide order dated 02.12.2009, three annual increments of the petitioner were forfeited with immediate effect. 2) Feeling aggrieved of orders dated 01.09.2009 and 02.12.2009, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.1843/2010, which was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench (for short “the Tribunal”), and was registered as TA No.813/2021. 3) The objections were filed by the respondents thereby reiterating the factual aspects of the case. 4) The learned Tribunal vide order dated 13th July, 2021, dismissed the TA after taking note of the fact that the petitioner had retired from service and the amount to the extent of 40% stands already recovered from him. The WP(C) No.1619/2022 3 | P a g e learned Tribunal also directed that in the event any amount in excess of 40% has been recovered from the petitioner, the same be refunded to him within a period of two months. 5) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 13th July, 2021 (supra) on the ground that he learned Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the orders impugned in the petition were passed by the respondents without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. It is also contended that the amount to the extent of 40% recovered from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to the interim direction issued by the Court cannot be considered as a valid ground for dismissal of TA and further the learned Tribunal has not adverted to the case of the petitioner that the complaint was filed by the private respondent who was having some personal grudge with the father of the petitioner who was a hardcore supporter of a sitting MLA. 6) After having heard learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, it is found that the show cause notice dated 20.05.2009 was served upon the petitioner and that was why he annexed the same along with his petition bearing SWP No.1843/2010, which was subsequently transferred to the learned Tribunal. For the reasons best known the petitioner, never chose to file response to the said show cause notice. Another show cause notice dated WP(C) No.1619/2022 4 | P a g e 31.07.2009 was served upon the petitioner by the respondent No.2 to explain his position with supporting documents within weeks’ time, which was responded to by the petitioner through the medium of reply dated 27.08.2009. 7) After examining the complaint as well as the report of the committee, the respondent No.2 directed recovery of 60% of Rs.2.90 lacs from the petitioner and further vide order dated 2nd December, 2009, three increments of the petitioner were forfeited. The orders impugned have been issued by the respondents after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned Tribunal has also returned a positive finding that two show cause notices, one dated 20.05.2009 and another dated 31.07.2009 were served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. The learned Tribunal has rightly passed the order and, in fact, has reduced the recovery of amount by 20% i.e. from 60% to 40% of Rs.2.90 lacs. 8) In view of the above, we do not find any reason to show indulgence. The writ petition is found to be misconceived and is dismissed accordingly. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 18.08.2025 “Bhat Altaf” Whether the judgment is reportable: No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.08.2025 12:05