Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 701 (UTT)

VIJAY PAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-10-31

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing rejoinder affidavit is condoned. Rejoinder affidavit is taken on record. CLMA No. 8091 of 2013 stands disposed of accordingly. 2. Petitioner is working as 4th Class employee (Sweeper) in the office of Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Lansdowne. Petitioner is semi illiterate person. He applied for withdrawal of certain amount from his G.P.F. account. Amount asked for by the petitioner was sanctioned and permitted to be withdrawn. Later on, it was found that petitioner has withdrawn excess amount. In other words, has withdrawn amount over and above permissible withdrawal. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.08.2005 asking the petitioner as to why excess amount withdrawn by him be not recovered from the petitioner alongwith interest. Petitioner submitted his reply saying since he was semi illiterate, therefore, he is not supposed to make calculation and to understand the permissible limit. Thereafter, impugned order was passed on 30.04.2005 whereby recovery of excess amount alongwith penalty was directed from the petitioner. Thereafter, subsequent impugned order dated 17.01.2006 was also passed stopping one increment permanently. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that excess amount withdrawn by the petitioner is being recovered from the petitioner and he has no objection to it. He further contends that since petitioner is semi illiterate person and permitted by the competent officer to withdraw the amount, therefore, imposition of penalty of stopping of one annual increment permanently and recovery of excess amount with penalty is illegal and unjustified. 4. Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned Brief Holder, on the other hand, submits that petitioner was supposed to know how much amount is lying in his account and how much amount he can withdraw from his G.P.F. fund. Therefore, no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. 5. This is not a case where petitioner is said to have played fraud on the Department. When petitioner applied for the withdrawal of the amount, it was the duty of the Department not to sanction excess amount. Therefore, petitioner cannot be held guilty for the same. It is the fault on the part of the Department. 6. 5. This is not a case where petitioner is said to have played fraud on the Department. When petitioner applied for the withdrawal of the amount, it was the duty of the Department not to sanction excess amount. Therefore, petitioner cannot be held guilty for the same. It is the fault on the part of the Department. 6. In view of the fact that petitioner is paying excess amount withdrawn by him from G.P.C, therefore, only interest at the rate of Nationalized Bank saving bank account can be charged from the petitioner and punishment of stopping of one annual increment permanently seems to be totally unjustified. 7. Consequently, present writ petition is allowed in part. Impugned order dated 17.01.2006 is hereby quashed and impugned order dated 30.04.2005 is modified to the extent that excess amount received by the petitioner shall be recovered from the petitioner in equal installment. However, interest as prevalent in the saving account shall be charged/ recovered from the petitioner.