Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2 (JHR)

Rameshwar Lal v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-04

R.K.MERATHIA

body2010
Order This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order issued under Memo No. 189 dated 27.3.2006, directing recovery of Rs. 1,93,831.54 from the petitioner. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Sahani that the case of the petitioner was not considered before passing the impugned order. He further submitted that the retiral dues has also not been paid to the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the State, referring to tile counter affidavit, filed as far back as on 13.4.2009, submitted that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year 1998 with respect to theft of the said amount, which was the loss caused to the Government. Charges were framed against the petitioner and show cause was asked. The Inquiry Officer after conducting the inquiry, in .accordance with law, found the petitioner guilty and recommended for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner. Second show cause was also issued, but the petitioner submitted his reply only after reminders. Petitioner's reply was not found satisfactory and only thereafter the said order was passed for recovery of the said amount, which is perfectly legal and justified. 4. Petitioner has not tiled any rejoinder controverting the said position. He challenged the said order of recovery passed in the year 2006, after about 3 years by filing this writ petition. Petitioner retired in year 2008. It appears that the relevant aspects have been taken into consideration, while passing the order of recovery. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of punishment. 5. However, with regard to payment of retiral dues it is said in the counter affidavit that petitioner was asked vide letter No. 296 dated 4.3.2008 and letter No. 913 dated 26.9.2008 to make available his necessary documents for fixation of pension and for payment of his retiral dues. It is also submitted that the provident fund amount has already been paid and group insurance amount has been sanctioned and sanction of leave encashment, gratuity and pension is under process. 6. Mr. Shrivastava, appearing for the Accountant General, submitted that as soon as the petitioner and the department comply with the necessary formalities, necessary action will be taken as early as possible. 7. In the result, the order of recovery is confirmed. The petitioner is given liberty to comply with the formalities asked by the department within four weeks. 6. Mr. Shrivastava, appearing for the Accountant General, submitted that as soon as the petitioner and the department comply with the necessary formalities, necessary action will be taken as early as possible. 7. In the result, the order of recovery is confirmed. The petitioner is given liberty to comply with the formalities asked by the department within four weeks. Within four weeks, thereafter the department will do the needful and will send the papers to the Accountant General, who will also do the needful, within four weeks thereafter so that the admitted retiral dues of the petitioner is paid to him. 8. This writ petition is disposed of with the observation and direction aforesaid. No costs.