Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1156 (JHR)

Shanti Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-11-11

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Resolution No. 1343 dated 18th May, 2001, whereby and whereunder, the State of Bihar ordered to recover a sum of Rs. 3,98,398.86 from the amount as was due to the petitioners husband Late Gauri Shankar Prasad. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Late Gauri Shankar Prasad was a Range Officer under the State of Bihar, who worked to the satisfaction of the authorities for more than 25 years. A criminal case was lodged against him in the year 1991 alleging some irregularities committed by petitioners husband while posted at Sasaram. The husband of the petitioner was suspended during the pendency of the criminal case, whereinafter three increments were withheld, but again petitioners husband was suspended on 28th July, 1993 for similar allegations. Subsequently, her husband died before completion of the departmental proceeding and the criminal case as was lodged against him. Thereafter, the Respondent State of Bihar issued the Impugned order of recovery from her deceased husband vide Resolution No. 1343 dated 18th May, 2001. 3. The Respondents have not disputed the facts aforesaid. It is alleged that the service career of petitioners husband was not clear who was punished several times for different charges, including misappropriation of Government money. However, no specific detail of any charge sheet or punishment order has been given in the counter affidavit, nor copy of any such order has been enclosed. 4. It appears from the counter affidavit that a criminal case bearing G.R. No. 1465/88 (T.R. No. 671/2000) was lodged against the petitioners husband on the allegation of misappropriation of Government money and other charges, but it was closed due to the death of the petitioners husband who died on 12th September, 1999. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him, vide Memo No. 4711 dated 3rd September, 1999 for similar charge for which FIR was lodged and one Shri Amar Prasad, I.F.S. was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The said departmental proceeding never reached its finality. Earlier, six increments of petitioners husband were stopped. They were released, vide Resolution No. 2434 dated 2nd June, 1992, as mentioned at Paragraph-17 to the counter affidavit. Though the departmental proceeding was not completed even after six years of its initiation but because of death of petitioners husband the Government of Bihar decided to recover the amount of Rs. Earlier, six increments of petitioners husband were stopped. They were released, vide Resolution No. 2434 dated 2nd June, 1992, as mentioned at Paragraph-17 to the counter affidavit. Though the departmental proceeding was not completed even after six years of its initiation but because of death of petitioners husband the Government of Bihar decided to recover the amount of Rs. 3,98,398.86, vide impugned Resolution dated 18th May, 2001. 5. As the Resolution No. 1343 dated 18th May, 2001 is not based on any enquiry report and has been issued in complete violation of rules of natural justice and no amount can be recovered from the death-cum-retiral benefits to which the petitioner is entitled on the death of her husband, the impugned Resolution No. 1343 dated 18th May, 2001 is set aside. 6. The Respondent State of Bihar are directed to pay the petitioner the death-cum-retiral benefits to which she is entitled without recovering the amount of Rs. 3,98,398.86, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.