IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2104 (M/S) of 2007 Prem Lal Nautiyal …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents With Writ Petition No. 2162 (M/S) of 2007 Sudhakar Purohit …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Ravi Babulkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents. The petitioner is the Junior Engineer and is aggrieved by the recovery order issued against him. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the Block Development Committee of Block Bathwari, District Uttarkashi submitted a proposal for the construction of an irrigation canal in Village Bhankoli, Tehsil Bathwari, District Uttarkashi. The aforesaid proposal was sanctioned by the Irrigation Department in the year 1989-90 and the construction for the irrigation canal started soon thereafter. The present petitioner was posted as the Junior Engineer in this Division from 1992-2000. The construction of the canal was completed in the year 1996-97, but it never started functioning on account of certain defects. Upon the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the matter was investigated and a report of the Public Accounts Committee was submitted. Based on the said report, the recovery order of Rs.14.26 lacs was issued against the petitioner on the ground that he was partly responsible for the faulty construction of the irrigation canal. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. 2 Similar writ petition has also been filed by Sudhakar Purohit being Writ Petition No. 2162 of 2007 (M/S), who was posted as the Junior Engineer between the period 1990-95. At the outset, it has been alleged in paragraph 33 that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the issuance of the recovery order. This paragraph has not been denied by the respondents in paragraph 9 of the supplementary counter affidavit and the respondents have submitted that based on the report of the Public Accounts Committee, the petitioner was found to be negligent in the work conducted by him and consequently, was partly responsible for the loss incurred by the Government and therefore, the recovery certificate was rightly issued. In the light of the aforesaid admitted fact, it is clear that no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before issuing the recovery certificate. The action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, on this short ground, the impugned orders dated 21.4.2007 and 12.5.2009 cannot be sustained and are quashed. Writ petitions are allowed. It would be open to the respondents to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner. If such a notice is given, the petitioner is entitled to file a suitable reply and opportunity of hearing would also be provided. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 14-06-2011 Salim/