Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 102 (GAU)

Mehuve v. State of Nagaland & Ors.

2011-02-04

C.R.SARMA

body2011
C.R. Sarma, J. - Heard Mr. Neikokanuo, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Y. Longkumer, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respon­dent Nos. 1,2,3 & 5, Mr. T. B. Jamir, lear­ned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner, who was serving as Hindi Teacher at the Govt. High School Porba, Phek under D1S Pfutsero, retired on superannuation on 31.05.2005. After his retirement, the petitioner applied for his pensionary benefits including release of his GPF amount, but he was shocked to find that his GPF money amounting to Rs. 1.27,734/- was fraudulently withdrawn by somebody from the account of the petitioner with the Nagaland State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dimapur, Nagaland. The petitioner, having coming to know about the said fraudulent withdrawal of his GPF money, submitted a complaint, on 27.11.2006, followed representation before the authority concerned, but to no avail. Aggrieved by non-release of his GPF money, the petitioner, filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction for release of his GPF money amounting to Rs. 1,27,734/-. 3. The State-respondents, by filing affidavit-in-opposition, stated that, coming to know about the fraudulent withdrawal of the GPF money from the account of the petitioner, the Government directed an enquiry into the allegations of fraudulent drawal of GPF money from the account of the petitioner, and the Enquiry Officer, submitted his report, on 12.12.2008, wherein, it was stated that the petitioner did not withdraw his final GPF and that he may be allowed to withdraw the same. Paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the State-respondents, reads as follows: "4.That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 3 and 4 of the petition, the deponent states that as soon as the writ petition was filed, the department had instituted an enquiry into the allegations of fraudulent drawal of GPF vide Order No. ED/CON/HC-421/2008/03 dated 11th Nov. 2008. The Enquiry officer has submitted his report vide letter No. DEOP/ESTT-1/2007-2008/461 dated 12lh December 2008. In the findings, the Enquiry officer has stated that the petitioner has not withdrawn his Final GPF and that he may be allowed to withdraw the same." 4. 2008. The Enquiry officer has submitted his report vide letter No. DEOP/ESTT-1/2007-2008/461 dated 12lh December 2008. In the findings, the Enquiry officer has stated that the petitioner has not withdrawn his Final GPF and that he may be allowed to withdraw the same." 4. The relevant portion of the enquiry report, submitted by the District Education Officer, Phek, reads as follows: "(xi) Shri Muzapu, DIS, Phek was interv­iewed on the 28th November, 2008 and checked all files in detailed. However, there was not any file mentioning his final withdrawal. In view of the stated above, Shri Muhuve Retired Hindi Teacher of GHS, Porba is found clean about this fraudulent withdrawal of his Final GPF amounting to Rs. 1,27,734/-. Henceforth, he may be allowed to withdraw his GPF final against his GPF A/C No. 7373 because it was his hard earning accumulation. This is for your information and further necessary action please." 5. Subsequently, a vigilance enquiry was directed to investigate into the matter, and accordingly, the Director & Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Nagaland, Kohima, submitted his Progress Report, vide No. RC 4/2008, dated .28.10.2010 in connection with the Case No. RC 9/2008. The conclusion part of the said Progress Report, reads follows: "5. Shri Muhuve Rtd. H/T has retired from service w.e.f. 01.11.2005 and his application was forwarded to the A.G. Nagaland from the Directorate of School Education. Whereas Mr. Huhumu, Rtd. P/T appears to have released from service w.e.f. 15.03.2002, which is abnormal and should be the last day of the month. 8. Remarks: It is ascertained form the above stated points that Mr. Muhuvu, Rtd. P/T has fraudulently drawn the GPF final withdrawal amounting to Rs. 1,27,734/- by impersonating as Mr. Muhuve H/T. To identify the actual person, who has drawn the GPF in 2002, efforts are on with the assistance of the Superintendent of Police, Dimapur which may take some more time. Also the matter of forged signature in the introducer's portion with that of the specimen signature are being referred to the Expert for their opinion." 6. From the said vigilance report, it appears that one Mr. Muhuvu, Rtd. P/T (Primary Teacher) had fraudulently withdrawn the final GPF amount of Rs. 1,27,734/- by impersonating as Mr. Muhuve, Rtd. H/T (Head Teacher). Also the matter of forged signature in the introducer's portion with that of the specimen signature are being referred to the Expert for their opinion." 6. From the said vigilance report, it appears that one Mr. Muhuvu, Rtd. P/T (Primary Teacher) had fraudulently withdrawn the final GPF amount of Rs. 1,27,734/- by impersonating as Mr. Muhuve, Rtd. H/T (Head Teacher). In the Enquiry Report, submitted by the District Education Officer, Phek, it has been clearly stated that Shri Muhuve, Retired Hindi Teacher of GHS, Porba i.e. the petitioner, was found clean in respect of the said fraudulent withdrawal of his final GPF money. It was also recommended, that he may be allowed to withdraw his GPF money against his GPF A/c. No. 7373. 7. In view of the above, considering entire aspect of the matter, it is found that the petitioner, who retired on superannuation, on 31.10.2005, after rendering his valuable service, has not been able to get his GPF money, which was his hard earned money, for no fault on his part. From the reports aforesaid, it has been clearly established that the petitioner did not withdraw his final GPF amount and that the said amount was withdrawn by one Mr. Muhuvu, Primary Teacher, who was shown to have retired on 15.03.2002, by impersonating as Mr. Muhuve, Retired Hindi Teacher i.e. the present petitioner. 8. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer any further, for no fault on his part. Therefore, I find sufficient merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, directing the State-respondents to release the final GPF amount, deposited in the account of the petitioner forthwith. 9. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.