Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 490 (JHR)

S. N. Ganguly v. Union of India

2012-03-30

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner prayed for the refund of Rs. 1,56,469/- which has been recovered from the petitioner's gratuity amount on the allegation that petitioner, who was incharge of one cycle stand, got the cycle stand coupons printed from a private press namely M/s. Mithila Art Press without authority and without permission of a competent officer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was never given any intimation that the procedure adopted by the petitioner is not in accordance with any of the rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner deposited the entire amount with the authorities and, thereafter, the authority, in particular Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, Chakradharpur, issued the cheques in the name of M/s. Mithila Art Press on three occasions. This fact was brought on record by the petitioner which has been taken note of by the officer of the department itself in its order dated 10.02.2009 which was passed in compliance of the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi dated 24.10.2008 in OA No. 151 of 2008. It is also submitted that the recovery sought from the petitioner is of the year 2001 to 2005 and petitioner retired in the year 2006. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Rule 15 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 provides for recovery of any ascertained amount from the dues payable by the railway to its employee. It is also submitted that petitioner was warned that he should not get the coupons printed directly, still the petitioner went on printing the coupons directly and making payments to the press. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents placed before us and the reasons given by the Tribunal in its impugned order dated 14th May, 2010 passed in O.A. No. 126 of 2009. 6. It is not in dispute that the allegation against the petitioner is of getting printed the cycle stand coupons from the year 2001 to 2005 and petitioner retired in the year 2006. 6. It is not in dispute that the allegation against the petitioner is of getting printed the cycle stand coupons from the year 2001 to 2005 and petitioner retired in the year 2006. Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was conducted so as to find out whether the amount was deposited by the petitioner and thereafter the same was remitted to the press by cheques issued by Senior Divisional Accounts Officer of the railway and also, no enquiry has been conducted with respect to the fact that whether in fact coupons were obtained and utilized for official work or not so as to find out whether any monetary loss was caused to the railway or not because, if the coupons would not have been obtained from the private press, the railway itself would have provided the tickets/coupons to the petitioner. 7. very many other defence, which can be taken by an employee in such facts and circumstances, were available to the writ petitioner and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a case where the petitioner had no defence. Otherwise also, it is the requirement of natural justice that any order of civil consequences, if is required to be passed, opportunity of hearing is required to be given to that person. In this case, such principle has not been followed. 8. In view of the above reason, the recovery of Rs. 1,56,469/- from the writ petitioner cannot be justified, therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal dated 14.05.2010 passed in O.A. No. 126 of 2009 is set aside. It is directed that the respondents shall pay the amount of Rs. 1,56,469/- to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery. The above said amount shall be paid to the writ petitioner within a period of two months from today.