Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 866 (RAJ)

Basanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2007-04-26

PREM SHANKER ASOPA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner who is widow of Prabhati Lal Sharma, a retired Gram Sewak, has challenged various orders passed by the respondents from 16.7.1998 to 04.04.2001 in respect at deduction of Rs. 1,93,925/- from the pension as a consequence of recovery of loss caused to the respondents. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, as per the petitioner (widow of Prabhati Lal) are that her husband was Gram Sevak and he retired from service on 31.07.2000. At that time, some enquiry was going against Prabhati Lal in respect of high value sub-standard construction and other matters which were ultimately concluded after retirement of Prabhati Lal vide Annexure R-1 (un-dated). Consequently, PPO was issued on 06.06.2001 and rest of the amount was also paid to Prabhati Lai. It has been stated in the writ petition, that Prabhati Lal had submitted an explanation. Initially the order of recovery of the original amount was issued for the sum of Rs. 43,284/- (Rs. 35,215/- + Rs. 8,069/-). Late husband of the petitioner was diagnosed as a Cancer patient on 20.10.2000 but when his pension case was not finalised and he was facing financial hardship to get himself treated, under compelling circumstances, he requested the authorities to settle the pension case after adjusting the demand of the above amount. It has also been stated in the writ petition that the said consent was given by husband of the petitioner, cancer patient, because on account of financial hardship, he had no, option but to give his consent to adjust the amount from retrial benefits. It has also been mentioned in the writ petition that the first phase of the construction work was completed during the tenure of Sarpanch for which husband of the petitioner could not be held responsible and other part of the work has been supervised by the Assistant Engineer, therefore, no responsibility could be directly fastened on the husband of the petitioner. It has further been stated in the writ petition that no departmental enquiry was held and without affording a reasonable opportunity to late husband of the petitioner, the alleged enquiry was concluded in violation of the principles of natural justice. There was also no justification to charge interest of Rs. 1,50,000/- approximately against the original amount of alleged loss of Rs. 43,284/-. There was also no justification to charge interest of Rs. 1,50,000/- approximately against the original amount of alleged loss of Rs. 43,284/-. Even rate of interest has not been disclosed either in the enquiry or at the time of deduction. 3. The State Govt. has filed reply to the writ petition and stated that sub-standard material was used in the construction of school building and other projects undertaken by the Gram Sevak. It has further been stated in the reply that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. As regards rate of interest, nothing has been stated in the reply to the writ petition. 4. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that without holding departmental enquiry, no. liability could have been fastened on the late husband of the petitioner and even if any enquiry has been initiated then also the principles of natural justice have not been followed. The original amount is Rs. 43,284/- but the interest amount has been shown Rs. 1,50,000/- approximately without specifying the rate of interest as well as the period of interest. 5. Submission of Mr. Sandu, Addl. GA is that it is not mandatory to conduct departmental enquiry in such kind of matters. Government is quite competent to initiate enquiry in an independent manner and the only requirement is to follow the principles of natural justice which has been done in this case. 6. I have considered submissions made by the counsel for the parties, 5 perused record of the case as also considered rival contentions of the parties. 7. I am of the considered view that it is not necessary for the Government to conduct the departmental enquiry as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1958. Option is available with the Government to conduct enquiry because sometimes private persons are also involved in such kind of high valuation sub-standard construction work. 7. I am of the considered view that it is not necessary for the Government to conduct the departmental enquiry as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1958. Option is available with the Government to conduct enquiry because sometimes private persons are also involved in such kind of high valuation sub-standard construction work. So far as enquiry initiated by the Government is concerned, there is no illegality in initiating independent enquiry because they have to conduct enquiry regarding high valuation sub-standard construction work for which the 5 Contractor may have also been responsible but here in the instant case, only husband of the petitioner has been held responsible even without conducting enquiry against the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in whose tenure first phase of the work was completed and further other works have been supervised by the Assistant Engineer. Apart from this, husband of the o petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity, therefore, the procedure adopted in conducting the enquiry is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. Normally, in such type of cases, the case is remanded back to the competent authority to conduct enquiry afresh but since husband of the petitioner died and now no proper opportunity can be given to the petitioner and otherwise also, after such lapse of time, complete record may not be available, therefore, I proceed to examine the case on the basis of whatever material is available on record. 8. From the material available on record, it transpires that husband of the petitioner had given consent for deduction of the amount, may be under compelling circumstances, but that consent cannot be taken to charge ,exorbitant rate of interest more so without specifying any period thereof. Therefore, I am of view that ends of justice would be met if the original amount of Rs. 43,284/- be retained by the State Government and rest of the amount of interest be refunded to the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, order dated 04.04.2001 (Anx. 14) is partly quashed so far as interest part is concerned and the respondents are directed to refund the amount of interest to the petitioner. Consequently, the PPO dated 6.6.2001 is ordered to be revised. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within three months. 10. The writ petition is partly allowed.Writ Petition Partly Allowed. *******