Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 93 (UTT)

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-03-20

BARIN GHOSH, V.K.BIST

body2014
JUDGMENT BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) Petitioner retired on 30th April, 2006. Soon thereafter, on 27th May, 2006, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The said charge-sheet, upon being replied, was enquired into by an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer concluded the matter by not concluding the same. The inquiry report was made on 30th October, 2006. Subsequent thereto, no further inquiry was conducted, but, at the same time, on 9th November, 2012, an order was passed directing recovery from the petitioner of a sum of ‘ 3,98,332.72 by 109 installments of ‘ 3,622/- and the last installment of ‘ 3534.72 under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations. In other words, it has been held that the pecuniary loss caused to the Government to the tune of ‘ 3,98,332.72 be recovered from the pension of the petitioner by the afore-mentioned installments. 2. In the charge-sheet, it was held out that, in respect of a contract named therein, the contractor was to receive payments by 9 installments; 7 of them were given on time, but the remaining two were not given on time by the petitioner and, in consequence thereof, the Government had to pay interest, half thereof amounting to ‘ 3,98,332.72, which the Government could avoid to pay, in the event, those two installments were paid on time, is recoverable from the petitioner as loss caused to the Government by the petitioner. In respect of the said charge, the Inquiry Officer in his report concluded that the selfsame contractor was paid ‘ 4.56 crores in excess according to the Controller and Accountant General. The matter pertaining to the excess payment has not yet been checked and verified and that, because of such excess payment, the last two installments were stopped, is the contention of the petitioner. The matter pertaining to the excess payment has not yet been checked and verified and that, because of such excess payment, the last two installments were stopped, is the contention of the petitioner. At the same time, it was also held that the contract specified that the payments to be made to the contractor should be made on the dates as fixed and, in default, the contractor will be entitled to interest at the rate of 14 per cent per annum and, in that view of the matter, non-payment of the 8th and the 9th installments on time is against the contract and, if this breach is taken into account, then the petitioner is liable; but, at the same time, it was held that the contractor has failed to furnish all necessary particulars and, in such view of the matter, a sum of ‘ 4.56 crores is to be recovered from the contractor and, for that matter, two payments were stopped. Having had held as above, the Inquiry Officer concluded the matter by saying that, inasmuch as the petitioner has been charged for non-payment of the 8th and the 9th installments to the said contractor and, at the same time, inasmuch as the matter pertaining to payment of ‘ 4.56 crores in excess has not been concluded; a high level inquiry is to be made. 3. Subsequent thereto, petitioner was not informed of any high level inquiry. The order, by which a direction has been given for recovery of ‘ 3,98,332.72, has also not held out that the matter pertaining to payment of ‘ 4.56 crores in excess to the contractor has been concluded. We, therefore, find that the disciplinary proceeding could not be concluded in the manner the same was sought to be concluded by directing the afore-mentioned recovery. 4. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and quash the order impugned dated 9th November, 2012.