Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1138 (JHR)

Chandrika Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2008-09-22

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. Prayer in this writ application is for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to refund to the petitioner Rs. 49,156/-, which has been deducted from the total amount of earned leave encashment of the petitioner at the time of payment of his retiral benefits, with interest. 2. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are that he was employed as Cashier/Accountant in the Office of the R.E.O., in Hazaribagh Division and was posted in Dhanbad Sub-division of the Rural Engineering Organization. On his transfer from Dhanbad to Giridih, the Superintending Engineer, R.E.O., Hazaribagh inspected the Office of the Dhanbad Sub-division on 12.09.1994 to 14.09.1994. Almost, six years later, the petitioner was served with a copy of the report of inspection calling upon him to show cause as to why the amount of Rs. 44,182/-, which the petitioner had received, was not entered into the Account Books and was not deposited in the Government Treasury. The petitioner responded by submitting his reply and explaining the reasons both for not making the entry of the aforesaid amount into the Account Books and also for not depositing the same in the Treasury and the same was accepted by the Respondents. However, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,940/-, which the petitioner was compelled to make in view of the fact that date of his retirement from service was fast approaching. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that after having accepted the explanation of the petitioner and being satisfied with the Statement of Accounts rendered by him that there was no requirement of further payment of any interest amount or any other amount save and except, the amount of Rs. 11,900/-, which the petitioner had acknowledged to pay and which amount the petitioner had later deposited, yet, after the retirement of the petitioner, the Respondents had illegally deducted a sum of Rs. 49,156/- from the total amount of earned leave encashment of the petitioner. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. 11,900/-, which the petitioner had acknowledged to pay and which amount the petitioner had later deposited, yet, after the retirement of the petitioner, the Respondents had illegally deducted a sum of Rs. 49,156/- from the total amount of earned leave encashment of the petitioner. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. The stand taken by the Respondents is that the petitioner's contention that his statements of Accounts were found satisfactory and were accepted, does not appear to be correct in view of the fact that the petitioner had himself acknowledged that after having spent the aforesaid amount in the Government's work, the outstanding sum of Rs. 11,900/-remained due in his hands and he was directed therefore, to deposit the same. The further stand is that the aforesaid amount has been deposited by way of interest over the principal amount and the same was entered only in the pass book and the outstanding dues of a sum of Rs. 29.156/-, was deducted from the bill of leave encashment of the petitioner. 5. From the rival pleadings, it appears that even during the petitioner's tenure in service, it was found that the petitioner had withheld a sum of Rs. 44,182/- without making any entry in the Accounts Book and without depositing the money in the Government Treasury. However, the explanation offered by the petitioner appears to have been accepted by the Respondents-authorities as per Annexures 2 and 3 of the writ application. Counter affidavit of the Respondents does not advert to the petitioner's statements contained in the writ application with reference to Annexures 2 and 3. The facts suggests that the explanation offered by the petitioner was accepted and on the basis of the petitioner's admission that a sum of Rs. 11,900/- was due from him, the matter was decided by a direction to the petitioner to deposit the amount, which the petitioner did subsequently. Apparently, there was no further demand from the side of the Respondents calling upon the petitioner to deposit any further amount. 6. Having allowed the petitioner to retire from his service, the Respondents have thereafter sought to deduct certain amounts from the petitioner's retiral benefits and that too without giving any notice to the petitioner or without affording any opportunity to explain as to why the deduction should not be made. 6. Having allowed the petitioner to retire from his service, the Respondents have thereafter sought to deduct certain amounts from the petitioner's retiral benefits and that too without giving any notice to the petitioner or without affording any opportunity to explain as to why the deduction should not be made. Admittedly, no proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of any charge framed against him. Under such circumstances, the deduction of the amount made from the retiral benefits in the manner as has been made, is certainly illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 7. For the reasons stated above, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The Respondents are directed to refund the aforesaid amount which they had deducted from the total amount of earned leave encashment within a period of three months from the date of this order, along with interest at the rate of 12 % calculated from the dale of deduction till final payment. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned Counsel for the Respondents-State. Application allowed.