Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 891 (JHR)

Awadhesh Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2020-09-15

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard through V.C. 2. The instant application was initially preferred for a direction upon the concerned respondent with a prayer to send the NOC to the Accountant General of Jharkhand for fixation of pension of the petitioner and payment of all other retiral benefits along with arrears of pension. 3. The facts relevant for adjudicating the instant application is that the petitioner was appointed as a casual worker in the year 1978 and subsequently his service was regularized along with others and he finally retired on 28.02.2011 while he was working as Store Keeper (Bhandarpal), Jalpath Division, Gumla. After filing of the instant application several affidavits/counter affidavits were filed by the parties. 4. After going through the averments made in the affidavits filed by the parties it transpires that entire retiral dues has now been paid to the petitioner except Rs.56,283/- which has been deducted from his retiral benefits on the ground that when the petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2011, there were some materials left in the charge of this petitioner which he has not handed over to the designated person and on that basis itself, Rs.56,283/- was deducted from his post retiral benefits pursuant to the order/letter dated 18.11.13; annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit dated 13.07.2018. The aforesaid order/letter dated 18.11.13 has also been annexed with Interlocutory application being I.A. No.589 of 2016 filed by the petitioner for necessary amendment in the writ application for challenging the same. The I.A. No.589 of 2016 was allowed vide order dated 18.11.17 and the petitioner was directed to file amended writ application. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the amended writ application could not be filed as such, I.A. No.589 of 2016 may be treated as part of the instant writ application and direction for filing of amended writ application may be waived and the instant application may be disposed of. Learned counsel for the State does not have any serious objection to the aforesaid prayer. Thus, with consent of the parties and in order to avoid any further delay, I am proceeding with the case treating the I.A. No.589 of 2016 as part of the instant writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the State does not have any serious objection to the aforesaid prayer. Thus, with consent of the parties and in order to avoid any further delay, I am proceeding with the case treating the I.A. No.589 of 2016 as part of the instant writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only issue involved in the instant application is that “whether the respondent authority can deduct any amount after retirement of an employee without following the provisions as enshrined in section 43 B of the Bihar Pension Rule or any rules; without giving any opportunity to the petitioner”. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent State reiterated the stand mentioned in the counter/supplementary counter affidavits and submits that the deduction of Rs.56,283/- was necessary as some items of that amount was missing from store after his retirement/relieving from service and it was the duty of the petitioner to hand over the key etc. However, he fairly admits that no specific proceeding was initiated against him before taking action of recovery/deduction of amount. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the counter affidavit it appears that Rs.56,283/- was deducted from the pension amount of the petitioner pursuant to letter/order dated 18.11.2013. It further transpires that before deduction of such amount, the petitioner was not heard and no specific proceeding under Rule-43-B of Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter to be referred as Rules) was initiated against him. It further appears from record that after the said order of deduction the petitioner had represented the concerned authority and annexed the list of articles and also annexed relevant chart of handing over and taking over the charges of goods/stocks for their kind perusal. The said representation along with the chart has been annexed as Annexture-2 series to the Interlocutory application being I.A. No.589 of 2016. It further appears that the categorical statement to the aforesaid effect made in para-6 of the I.A. No.589 of 2016 has not been denied by the respondent in their reply affidavit dated 14.03.16. 9. In the instant case, the respondent authority has deducted the amount without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The law is well settled in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. 9. In the instant case, the respondent authority has deducted the amount without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The law is well settled in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the certain principles. In yet another judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2013) 3 JLJR 655 in which several guidelines has been mentioned. Since recovery/deduction of any amount amounts to punishment, it has to go by the procedure as laid down under the Rules. 10. As per the settled principles of law as laid down in catena of judgments; before taking any action of recovery/deduction of amount after retirement, the department will have to go in accordance with law. Admittedly, in the instant case no proceeding has been initiated under Rule 43-B of the Rules before deducting the amount of Rs.56,283/-. 11. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 18.11.2013 as annexed in I.A. No.589 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned authority by giving him liberty to pass a fresh order after following due process of law, if permissible. 12. It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, failing which the deducted amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within a further period of four weeks along with interest of 7% from the date of deduction till the date of payment. 13. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ application is disposed of.