Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 298 (JHR)

Hare Krishna Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2013-02-28

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT By Court: Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ application for quashing of the orders contained at annexure-16 dated 23rd July 1999 and annexure-19 dated 28th December 1999 by which in a departmental proceeding pursued against the petitioner, order for recovery of amounts of Rs. 65,723.84 and Rs. 1,65,258.54 respectively from his salary was passed. 3. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery of the said amount during the pendency of the writ application and even earlier, have been effected by way of certificate proceedings pursued against the concerned Munshies to whom the said advances were made for collection of Kendu Leaves and the part of the amount has also been realized from the petitioner's salary. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that by orders passed by the respondent themselves which are contained in order no. 31-32 dated 9th May 2011, copies of which have been produced on behalf of the parties, pursuant to such realization of the amount from the different sources, the petitioner has been let out with a punishment of warning. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the loss to the department has already been realized. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has already been granted promotion by office order dated 17th February 2012 with effect from 8th September 1987 on the post of Range Officer. Such office order is said to be annexed as annexure-7 to the other writ petition being WPS No. 1572/12. In that view of the matter, counsel for the petitioner submits that since the amount in question stands realized by the respondent corporation through certificate proceedings as well as from the salary of the petitioner, part of the amount which may have been recovered earlier from him before realization of the entire amount, is bound to be refunded to the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the respondents submits that for the aforesaid prayer, the petitioner may approach the concerned respondent authorities who may look into the same and after verification of the records, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 5. Be that as it may. From the facts which have been narrated herein-above, it appears that the petitioner had approached this court against the order of punishment by which certain recovery was directed against the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may. From the facts which have been narrated herein-above, it appears that the petitioner had approached this court against the order of punishment by which certain recovery was directed against the petitioner. Such amounts have been realized from Munshies as well as from the salary of the petitioner. It also appears that the petitioner has been granted promotion from the date anterior to the date of the punishment order i.e. from 8th September 1987 i.e. much before his retirement. In that view of the matter, if the petitioner has a claim for refund of any excess amount realized from him, apart from what has been realized from the other Munshies through certificate proceedings, petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent Managing Director, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Limited by making a fresh representation within a period of three weeks from today with all supporting facts and documents. If such a representation is made before the respondent Managing Director, he shall consider the same in accordance with law, so far as the remaining grievances of the petitioner is concerned, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks thereafter, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner. If the petitioner is found to be entitled to any refund, the same shall also be made within a period of four weeks thereafter. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petition disposed of.