Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1029 (PAT)

Surendra Singh v. Bihar State Electricity Board

2014-09-24

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER 1. This is an application seeking quashing of a communication issued vide Memo No. 828 dated 04.08.2005 under the signature of Finance Controller (I) to the Accounts Officer, Electrical Supply Circle, Gaya, Bihar State Electricity Board whereby it has been informed that a sum of Rs. 75,293/- was recoverable from the petitioner on account of payment of pay in excess to his entitlement from his death-cum-retiral maturity. 2. Learned counsel for the referring to the statement made in the paragraph No. 6 of the writ application has submitted that before decision of recovery of the said amount from the gratuity amount admissible to the petitioner was taken, no notice was issued to him. He has contended that the amount already paid to the petitioner against salary should not have been recovered without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner himself had agreed that if any amount against salary was paid in excess, same should be recovered from the D.C.R.G. amount. He accordingly submits that petitioner himself had agreed for recovery and now in the present proceeding, the petitioner cannot raise issue of non-compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice. 4. I have perused the letter written by the petitioner addressed to the Joint Secretary of Bihar State Electric Board requesting him to deduct the amount said to have been paid in excess to the petitioner from the gratuity amount. From the contents of the letter it appears that it cannot not be said to be a concession by him to effect that the said amount of Rs. 75,293/- was paid to the petitioner against salary in excess. The petitioner agreed that the said amount can be recovered from the amount of gratuity as the petitioner was not getting any post retiral benefit. 5. In such circumstance, in my opinion, the decision of the Respondents to recover the amount of gratuity as contained in Anenxure-1 cannot be sustained. The said decision is accordingly quashed. 6. However, the Respondents shall be at liberty to take a fresh decision after giving the petitioner due notice and opportunity of hearing before taking any decision to recover the said amount of Rs. 75,293/-. If the Respondents decide to proceed for recovery of the said amount of Rs. The said decision is accordingly quashed. 6. However, the Respondents shall be at liberty to take a fresh decision after giving the petitioner due notice and opportunity of hearing before taking any decision to recover the said amount of Rs. 75,293/-. If the Respondents decide to proceed for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 75,293/-, they will have to inform the petitioner as to how the said amount was paid to him in excess so that the petitioner may be in a position to deal with the stand of the Respondents. If no decision is taken within three months from the date of the present order, the said amount of Rs. 75,293/- withheld by the Respondent Board must be paid to the petitioner within one month thereafter. 7. This application is allowed accordingly.