Mehta Nand Klshore v. State Of Bihar — 1996 DIGILAW 527 (PAT)

Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 28.9.93, passed by the Secretary, Government of bihar, Department of Finance, as contained in Annexure - 7, whereby and whereunder punishment for deduction of 10 per cent, from the pension of the petitioner has been ordered to be made. 2. It appears that earlier, vide order dated 16.8.90 contained in annexure -2 a sum of Rs.17,871.41 P. was ordered to be deducted from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. The validity of the said order was assailed in C. W. J. C. No.8194 of 1993 on the ground that the Commissioner, Commercial lax had no authority to take such decision, and that the said order was passed without even asking for any show cause from the petitioner. This Court, vide order dated 14. S.93 contained in annexure 5, quashed the aforesaid order and directed the secretary to the Government, department of Finance to decide the matter afresh after giving notice to the petitioner in accordance with law within two months from the date of filing of the show cause by the petitioner. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for payment of G. P. F. amount raised in the said writ case, the Court directed to issue necessary orders of sanction so that the G. P. F. amount must be paid to the petitioner without any delay. Thereafter, the impugned order contained in annexure-7 has been passed. 3. Mr. Sinha learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of the law settled by the apex Court in the case of Union of India and another V/s. R. K. Desai reported in 1993 (24) Administrative Tribunals Cases 74 (S. C.) According to him, deduction cannot be ordered to be made on the ground of alleged charge without there being any charge finding against the petitioner of corrupt or improper motive for the exercise of the quasi-judicial power by him under the provisions of the Finance Act. 4. From the impugned order I find that the Secretary has simply found the alleged assessment orders, which were pressed by the petitioner to be a defective one and not that the same had been passed on account of any corrupt or improper motive by him. 4. From the impugned order I find that the Secretary has simply found the alleged assessment orders, which were pressed by the petitioner to be a defective one and not that the same had been passed on account of any corrupt or improper motive by him. In the aforementioned case, the Supreme court has held that the decision taken by the Officer in exercise of quasi-Judicial function may be palpably erroneous decision taken by virtue of his office, but no disciplinary action will lie except if the decision was taken pursuant to corrupt or improper motive. 5. Learned Advocate-General appearing for the State has not been able to show from the impugned order that there was any corrupt or improper motive alleged against the petitioner or that there is any finding recorded by the secretary in that regard. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed. 6. As regards payment of G. P. F. amount, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same has not been paid despite direction of this Court given on 14,5.1993 (Annexure - 5 ). Learned Advocate-General with reference to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the necessary orders have been passed for payment of the G. P. F. amount. However, no such order has been annexed to the said counter-affidavit. I fail to appreciate this attitude of the concerned authority. The order of this court was passed on 14.5.1993 for payment of G. P. F. amount to the petitioner without any delay, whereas, we are now in August, 1996. Yet even the sanction order, which is claimed to have been passed, has not been annexed to the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled for penal interest and cost as well over the dues of the G. P. F. amount payable to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, I direct the respondents (respondent Nos.2 and 3)to immediately issue necessary sanction order for payment of 10 per cent, of the remaining pension amount to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt production of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, I direct the respondents (respondent Nos.2 and 3)to immediately issue necessary sanction order for payment of 10 per cent, of the remaining pension amount to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt production of a copy of this order. The Director of Provident fund is directed to issue the necessary sanction order for payment of the g. P. F. of the petitioner within two weeks of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him along with penal interest at the rate of 9 per cent. besides the statutory interest. The respondents shall also pay cost of Rs.2,500/- to the petitioner within the aforesaid time. 8. The amount of panel interest and the cost shall be realised from the authority/person concerned, who is found to be guilty for the delay in making payment of the G. P. F. amount. The Secretary (respondent No.2) is directed to fix the responsibility for the said delay and order for realisation of the amount of penal interest and costs from the said authority and file a copy of the order in this case in regard to the same within one month of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The matter shall be placed for orders after one month. Order Accordingly.