Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 528 (RAJ)

Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2016-04-13

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner a retired employee of the Public Health and Engineering Department of Govt., of Rajasthan has approached this Court being aggrieved of the recovery being made from his retiral dues. 2. The petitioner retired from the post of Office Assistant in the respondent Department in the year 2009. It appears that at the time of his superannuation, a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was pending trial against the petitioner and accordingly, his entire terminal benefits were not released. The respondents appear to be effecting deduction to the tune of Rs. 1000/- Per month from the petitioner's salary from the year 1995 onwards under a purported exercise of recovery of losses caused to the department. The same was continued even after his retirement. The petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 4292/2015 challenging the action of the respondents in denying him his terminal dues after his retirement, despite the aforesaid criminal case resulting into an acquittal by judgment dated 31.8.2013. 3. The writ petition came to be decided on 27.4.2015 directing the respondents to release the amount to the petitioner in case he was entitled to the same. In case, the respondents felt that the petitioner is not entitled, they were directed to pass a reasoned order. 4. Thereafter, an order (Annex. 14) dated 5.6.2015 came to be passed whereby the respondent Executive Engineer has directed that recover)' of a sum of Rs.16,62,823.45 be effected from the petitioner's gratuity and be adjusted against the alleged losses caused by the petitioner while working as Store Incharge in the respondent department. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, urges that no recovery is permissible from the terminal benefits of a retired employee in contravention of the above provisions. The recovery of any amount from an employee towards recovery of losses caused to the State Government is covered within the penalties provided in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules and thus, can only be effected after holding a departmental enquiry. Admittedly, no departmental inquiry whatsoever was instituted against the petitioner while he was in service. The recovery of any amount from an employee towards recovery of losses caused to the State Government is covered within the penalties provided in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules and thus, can only be effected after holding a departmental enquiry. Admittedly, no departmental inquiry whatsoever was instituted against the petitioner while he was in service. The only ground on which the pensionary benefits could have been with held from the petitioner was the pendency of the criminal case which resulted into his acquittal by judgment dated 31.8.2013. The State Government has taken a decision not to file an appeal against such judgment. Thus, there cannot be any justification in the action of the respondents in withholding the action of the respondents in withholding the petitioner's terminal dues and effecting recovery therefrom. 6. Shri N.K. Mehta, learned, AGC has filed reply to the writ petition wherein, it has been asserted that the petitioner, whilst working as a Store Inchare, caused huge losses to the department. A sum of Rs.1000/- per month was voluntarily being deposited by the petitioner from his salary till his superannuation for covering the losses. However, pursuant to his retirement, the said amount is now being recovered by the respondent department from his retiral dues and justifiedly so. Shri Mehta however, candidly concedes that no departmental inquiry was ever instituted against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct of causing loss to the department. The criminal case instituted against the petitioner for such allegations has resulted into his acquittal and the State has taken a decision not to challenge the judgment of acquittal passed by the competent Court in favour of the petitioner. 7. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents are not entitled to effect any recovery from the petitioner because such an action would amount to inflicting penalty as defined in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1958. As the action of inflicting penalty has been undertaken without taking recourse to any departmental inquiry, the same is totally illegal, arbitrary and baseless. 8. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to release the entire retiral dues to the petitioner from the date of his superannuation. The recovery of amount if any effected from the petitioner after his superannuation shall also be reimbursed to him. 8. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to release the entire retiral dues to the petitioner from the date of his superannuation. The recovery of amount if any effected from the petitioner after his superannuation shall also be reimbursed to him. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the entire withheld amount as well as the sum recovered from him in terms of Rule 86(3) of the Rajasthan Pension Rules. The stay application is disposed of.