Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 772 (PAT)

Raghunath Saran Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2014-07-11

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent State of Bihar in present batch of five writ applications. 2. There is one office Order dated 27.12.2011 passed by the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna which is under challenge in all these applications and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common order. 3. By the impugned order dated 27.12.2011 following amount has been directed to be recovered from the petitioners on account of lapses on their part leading theft of medicines and other articles from the surgical store of Patna Medical College and Hospital:- <font face="Kruti Dev 011"> Øekad dfeZ;ksa dk uke inuke olwyh ;ksX; jkf’k 1- Jh j?kqukFk 'kj.k flag rRdkyhu izHkkjh HkS"kT; 6]35]390-00 2- Jh lq;Znso ;kno HkS"kT; 1]05]900-00 3- Jh /khjsUnz dqekj flag HkS"kT; 1]05]900-00 4- Jh /kusUnz dqekj HkS"kT; 1]05]900-00 5- Jh vo/ks’k dqekj HkS"kT; 1]05]900-00 6- Jh larks"k dqekj fyfid 1]05]900-00 7- Jh fnyhi jksgrxh fyfid 1]05]900-00 ;ksx 12]70]790-00 </font> 4. The petitioners at the relevant point of time were posted as Incharge-Pharmacist/Pharmacists/Clerks in Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. On the allegation of theft having been committed in the surgical store of the Hospital because of lapses on their part resulting into loss of revenue to the State, the impugned order has been passed. 5. The order contemplates that the amount abovementioned would be recovered from the salary of the concerned employees. As regards petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1072 of 2012, it has been mentioned that the said amount shall be recovered by adjusting the entire amount of General Provident Fund. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted, and which is not in dispute, that the impugned office order has been passed without giving any show–cause notice to the petitioners. It has specifically been stated in the writ application that before passing the impugned order, no notice was given to the petitioners regarding proposed action of the Respondents and petitioners did not have any opportunity to explain their position. 7. It has specifically been stated in the writ application that before passing the impugned order, no notice was given to the petitioners regarding proposed action of the Respondents and petitioners did not have any opportunity to explain their position. 7. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1072 of 2012 that the decision to recover the amount in question from the amount admissible to the petitioner against his General Provident Fund is illegal and unauthorized as the amount of General Provident Fund cannot be adjusted against any other legal dues. He has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court judgment reported in A.I.R. 1969 SC 762 (Union of India Vs. Radha Kissan Agarwala and Ors. ) of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9357 of 2012 dated 10.05.2012. 8. Mrs. Namrata Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has contended that notice in fact was issued to the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1072 of 2012 vide Memo No. 11359 dated 26.09.2011 by the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, to which the petitioner had replied on 23.09.2011. She accordingly submits that the action of Respondents needs no interference. 9. The submission on behalf of the State that show-cause notice was issued by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1072 of 2012 through Memo No. 11359 dated 26.09.2011 (Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4) cannot be accepted as the said letter dated 26.09.2011 can’t be treated to be a show-cause notice. 10. On perusal of the said letter, it would be evident that it was issued without giving the petitioners any opportunity of being heard. Further there is absolutely no mention in the said letter of any specific allegation with respect to lapse on the part of the petitioner nor the proposed action of the Respondents. The impugned order issued vide Memo No. 15075 dated 27.12.2011issued by the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna (Annexure-1) is accordingly quashed having been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. 11. The Respondents shall have, however, liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law after giving them proper opportunity of hearing. The impugned order issued vide Memo No. 15075 dated 27.12.2011issued by the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna (Annexure-1) is accordingly quashed having been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. 11. The Respondents shall have, however, liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law after giving them proper opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the amount of General Provident Fund admissible to the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1072 of 2012 could not be withheld for any reason and it has wrongly been ordered in the impugned order that the said General Provident Fund amount shall be adjusted against the amount recoverable from the said petitioner. 12. If the General Provident Fund amount payable to the petitioner Raghunath Sharan Sinha has been withheld so far, same shall be released immediately after production of a copy of the present order. 13. These applications are allowed accordingly.