Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 671 (PAT)

Nawal Kishore Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-12

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the letter issued vide memo no. 3363 dated 16.6.2000 to the Deputy Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the Deputy Secretary was directed to realise a sum of Rs. 1,16,136=23 from the petitioner and pay back to the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (here in after referred to as the Corporation). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working on deputation in the Corporation on the post of Assistant Godown Manager and while he was working there, Annexure 1 dated 20th October, 1981 was issued directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 21,240=40 on account of damages caused to food grains due to his negligence. Pursuant to the letter aforesaid, the petitioner filed his representation before the authorities concerned explaining the circumstances causing damages of food grains. Matter thereafter remained pending for consideration before the Corporation and the Corporation vide letter as contained in Annexure 3 dated 19.4.1994 rejected the representation of the petitioner and directed him to deposit Rs. 21,240=40 along with interest thereupon. The petitioner pursuant to the letter as contained in Annexure 3 made necessary deposits vide Annexure 4 series between 1994 and 1995. It is further submitted that after necessary deposits were made by the petitioner of the principal amount, the authorities of the Corporation vide their letter as contained in Annexure 6 dated 16. 6.2000 again requested the Deputy Secretary of the Food, Civil Supplies and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to realise a sum of Rs. 1,16,136-23 from the petitioner towards interest on the principal amount already paid by him and a copy of the letter was communicated to the petitioner. 4. After issuance of the letter as contained in Annexure 6, the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31st December, 2000 and after his retirement, his parent department finalised his retiral dues and started paying pension etc. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this background, submitted that since the petitioner had already deposited the principal amount pursuant to the letter as contained in Annexure 3, he cannot be saddled with interest part and that also without determination of the liability by the competent authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this background, submitted that since the petitioner had already deposited the principal amount pursuant to the letter as contained in Annexure 3, he cannot be saddled with interest part and that also without determination of the liability by the competent authority. It is further submitted that at no point of time any request was made to the State Government to proceed against this petitioner for his omission and commission while he was on deputation nor the State Government at any point of time, initiated any proceeding against the petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order impugned as contained in Annexure 6 is arbitrary, unreasonable and wholly without jurisdiction. 6. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Corporation and also the State of Bihar. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, it is stated that the petitioner has already superannuated and he is getting his pension etc. However, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation, it is stated that the petitioner was responsible for damages caused to food grains kept in the godown and, therefore, initially in the year 1981 he was directed to make good the loss suffered by the Corporation and when the damages were not compensated, they have calculated the interest upon the principal amount and the Board of Directors have already taken decision in this regard after considering the entire facts of this case. 7. From the discussions aforementioned, it is manifest that after issuance of Annexure 1 in the year 1981 the representation/objection filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 19.4.1994 after a gap of 13 years and he was asked to deposit the principal amount amounting to Rs. 21,240-40 along with interest. It is manifest from Annexure 3 that the quantum of interest has not been determined by the authorities and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the interest and more so, without de-termination of the liability the guilt cannot be fastened upon the petitioner and he cannot be saddled with this heavy interest amounting to Rs. 1,16,136.23. There is nothing in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation to show that the liability covers both the amounts. 1,16,136.23. There is nothing in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation to show that the liability covers both the amounts. It appears that the damages were assessed to a sum of Rupees twenty one thousand and odd which was already paid by the petitioner vide Annexure 4 series in between 1994 and 1995. Now asking for interest amounting to more than a lac and that also without deciding the claim of the petitioner, in my opinion, would be most unreasonable, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed. Order impugned as contained in Annexure 6 is set aside.No costs.