### Recovery Order Passed Without Reasoned Findings and Prior to Show Cause Notice is Legally Unsustainable

The petitioner was an Incharge Supervisor at Gram Panchayat Imaliya, Morena

Following a complaint regarding corruption in the construction of toilets, an Inquiry Officer found that 44 beneficiaries used forged IDs to obtain government funds without actual construction

The inquiry concluded that the petitioner had uploaded photographs of constructed toilets and beneficiaries to facilitate this fraud

Based on this inquiry report, a show-cause notice dated 09.08.2017 was issued, which simultaneously directed the petitioner to deposit ₹1,32,000/-

The petitioner challenged the recovery order (Annexure P-1) via a writ petition, alleging that the enquiry was conducted behind his back without an opportunity for cross-examination and that the final order was non-speaking and predetermined

1. Whether the impugned recovery order dated 01.09.2017 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and whether it constitutes a speaking order

2. Whether the respondents’ direction to deposit the amount prior to the consideration of the show-cause notice indicates a predetermined and mala fide intention

The court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding judicial review of administrative actions

The court relied on the principle that quasi-judicial and administrative authorities must pass "speaking orders" supported by valid and justifiable reasons

State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh (2016), emphasizing that decisions must not be capricious or arbitrary but informed by reasons

Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010), asserting that reasons are an indispensable component of the decision-making process and necessary for the "lifeblood of judicial decision-making"

The court found that the respondents failed to file a reply despite multiple opportunities, leading the case to be decided on existing pleadings

Upon reviewing the record, the court observed that the enquiry was conducted without the petitioner's presence, denying him the right to cross-examine witnesses

The court strictly scrutinized the impugned order (Annexure P-1) and found it to be "non-speaking" and "devoid of reasons," failing the test of quasi-judicial diligence

Crucially, the court noted that because the show-cause notice itself contained a directive to deposit the money, the respondents had "already made up their mind" before considering the petitioner's defense

This predetermination indicated that the recovery was pursued with mala fide intention and total disregard for the broad doctrine of fairness

The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 01.09.2017 was quashed

Since the petitioner had already retired during the pendency of the litigation, the court explicitly denied the respondents any liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against him