Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 50 (MAN)

R. K. Ranjan Singh v. Manipur University

2022-04-12

AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. BP Sahu, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition had been filed with a prayer for quashing or setting aside the office order dated 25.02.2020 for deducting Rs. 30,000/- per month from the pension payable to the petitioner till the amount of Rs. 10,12,323/- is recovered from him and also with a prayer for directing the respondents to refund the amount so far deducted from the monthly pension of the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was earlier serving as the Director i/c of the College Development Council of the Manipur University and he retired from service w.e.f. 31.08.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement from service, a thorough inquiry was held to find out whether there is any due against the petitioner and during the inquiry when the authorities found that there was no outstanding due against the petitioner, the Deputy Registrar, Manipur University issued a 'No Due Certificate' dated 31.07.2013 in favour of the petitioner wherein it was certified that there was no outstanding due against the petitioner. About seven years after his retirement from service, the petitioner was informed by the Deputy Registrar (Admn.), Manipur University, under the latter's letter dated 06.09.2019 that an amount of Rs. 5,29,033/- was lying as advance against the petitioner's name on account of Orientation Courses/Seminars/Refreshers courses and contingency, etc. and requesting the petitioner to clarify and adjust the same so as to enable the Manipur University to adjust it at an early date. In the said letter the petitioner was also informed that as per General Financial Rules (GFR), the outstanding amounts were required to be paid back with 10 % interest if not settled. 4. On receiving the said aforesaid letter dated 06.09.2019, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 16.09.2019 to the Deputy Registrar (Admn.), Manipur University requesting him to furnish a copy each of the 'Audit Reports/Paras' of the University conducted by the three groups of different agencies as done every year commencing from the financial year 2010-2011 to 2011-2012 in order to enable the petitioner to settle the issue. In response to the letter of the petitioner dated 16.09.2019, the Registrar i/c, Manipur University wrote a letter dated 02.01.2019 (02.01.2020) furnishing to the petitioner- (i) the extract of the Annual Accounts for the year 2010-2011 duly approved by Finance Committee and Executive Committee showing the consolidated advance against expenses of a total amount of Rs. 1,31,34,778/- ; (ii) the extract of the Annual Accounts for the year 2011-2012 duly approved by Finance Committee and Executive Committee showing the consolidated advance against expenses of a total amount of Rs. 2,83,70,033/- and (iii) the extract of the details of advance pending in the year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 pertaining to outstanding amount of Rs. 5,29,033/- and thereafter, requesting the petitioner to adjust the outstanding amount along with relevant vouchers or to refund the amount along with interest, failing which, the outstanding amount will be deducted from the monthly pension of the petitioner. In the said letter, the petitioner was also informed that as per the UGC norms, interest @ 10 % of simple interest will be charged on the outstanding amount. Subsequently, the Vice Chancellor of Manipur University wrote a letter dated 06.01.2020 to the petitioner informing him that as per the records, advance of an amount of Rs. 5,29,033/- was lying unadjusted in the name of the petitioner and that as per General Financial Rules (GFR) all advances have to be adjusted within fifteen days of the drawal of advance failing which the advance or balance shall be recovered from the concerned employee's next salary and that as per the UGC Directives, the unadjusted advances treated as unutilized fund are required to be refunded back along with 10% interest if not settled. In the said letter the petitioner was also informed that as the advances have been lying unadjusted, the outstanding shall be deducted from the petitioner's monthly pension due in February, 2020 along with an interest @ 10 %. 5. In the said letter the petitioner was also informed that as the advances have been lying unadjusted, the outstanding shall be deducted from the petitioner's monthly pension due in February, 2020 along with an interest @ 10 %. 5. In response to the letter of the Vice Chancellor, Manipur University, dated 06.01.2020, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 23.01.2020 to the Vice Chancellor, Manipur University stating, inter alia that despite his request for furnishing a copy of the 'Audit report/Para' of the University conducted by three groups of different agencies, the Registrar i/c of Manipur University furnished only a few unsigned extract copies of an unrelevant Register and that the Vice Chancellor, Manipur University took the decision to deduct the outstanding amount along with interest of 10 % from the monthly pension of the petitioner without having substantial proofs. It has also been stated that the Manipur University organize/conduct number of different training programs like 'Refresher Course', 'Orientation Programme', 'Circulation Course' etc. from time to time with the Financial Assistance and Directive of the UGC and that while conducting/ organizing the said programmes, prior approval of the competent authority were obtained by opening new files of all the disciplines on the proposed programme and expenditure sanction and that after completion of the programme, the Director, CDC or the concerned authority submitted all the vouchers and documents relating to the programme through the concerned file for a final settlement of the advances as such adjustment of advance was mandatory and that before alleging of unadjustment of advance against the petitioner, proper checking of all the relevant files was essential and accordingly, the petitioner made a request for furnishing the copy of the note sheets of the relevant files for taking necessary action in his defence. In the said letter, it was also pointed out by the petitioner that at the time of his retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the authorities of the Manipur University issued a 'No Due Certificate' to the effect that there was no outstanding against him and accordingly, the petitioner stated that there was no advance to be adjusted against him and that the proposal for deducting money from his monthly pension by the authority of Manipur University was highly irregular. 6. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that without at all considering the merit of the statements made by the petitioner in his letter dated 23.01.2020 and without furnishing the documents requested by the petitioner, the Vice Chancellor of Manipur University wrote a letter dated 25.01.2020 to the petitioner informing him that it is the responsibility of the employees to ensure that all advances are adjusted as per the Rule 323 (2) of the General Financial Rules (GFR) 2017, which states that the adjustment bill, along with balance if any, shall be submitted by the Government servant within fifteen days of the drawal of advance, failing which the advance or balance shall be recovered from his next salary. In the said letter the petitioner was informed that unless the advances are adjusted, it will be treated as a case of misproportion of fund and that the advances drawn are required to be adjusted with relevant vouchers or to refund the amount along with interest, failing which the outstanding amount shall be deducted from the petitioner's monthly salary and that as on 31.12.2019, the advance and interest accumulated was Rs. 10,07,916/-. 7. In response to the aforesaid letter dated 25.01.2020 of the Vice Chancellor of Manipur University, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 27.01.2020, raising his objection to the allegation of using the word misappropriation against him and to the steps taken by the authorities for deducting money from his pension by denying the allegations made against him and also reiterating his request for furnishing the copy of note sheets relating to the drawal/adjustment of the advance. In the said letter, the petitioner also requested the Vice Chancellor of Manipur University not to deduct any money from his pension unless and until the issue was finally settled. However, without considering the merit and the request made by the petitioner in his letter dated 27.01.2020, the Vice Chancellor, Manipur University issued an office order dated 25.02.2020 ordering for deduction of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the pension payable to the petitioner till the amount of Rs. 10,12,323/- is recovered. Having been aggrieved by the said office order, the petitioner assailed the same by filing the present writ petition. 8. 30,000/- per month from the pension payable to the petitioner till the amount of Rs. 10,12,323/- is recovered. Having been aggrieved by the said office order, the petitioner assailed the same by filing the present writ petition. 8. The stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit is that when an Audit Team from the Government of India visited Manipur University and did a summary audit of the accounts on 26.10.2018 and thereafter submitted their findings to the Administrator of the Manipur University. The finding of the said Audit Team was that MU has about Rs. 19, 00,00,000/- (nineteen crores) unsettled outstanding advances against different persons/institutions, some of which are outstanding for more than eight years. On the basis of the said finding, the Finance Office of the Manipur University started preparing the list of unsettled advances against different persons and it took about four months to prepare the list of individuals who had not settled their advances and as such, notice was given to all the concerned persons including the petitioner, for adjustment in terms of Rule 323 (2) of the General Financial Rules. 9. It has also been contended that the 'No Due Certificate' issued in favour of the petitioner at the time of his retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation was issued through oversight/overlook and that many years after the petitioner retired from service, the authority of the University re-verifies/ retreats the financial lapses and found out the advance amount of Rs. 5,29,033/- lying unadjusted by the petitioner when he was the Director of the College Development Council. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed by the authorities of the Manipur University about the unadjusted amount and requesting him to adjust the said advance amount by producing/submitting necessary bills/vouchers or to refund the amount along with interest, failing which, the aforesaid advance amount along with interest will be deducted from his monthly pension till the said amounts are recovered. 10. It has also been stated by the respondents that the petitioner was informed repeatedly by the authorities including the Vice Chancellor of the Manipur University by writing several letters informing him about the unadjusted amount lying against him and requesting him to adjust the said amount by submitting vouchers or to refund the said advance amount if he is unable to adjust the same. It has also been stated that it was made clear to the petitioner that if the advance amounts are unadjusted, it will be treated as unutilized fund and the same are required to be refunded back as provided under the Rule 323 (2) of the General Financial Rules along with 10 % interest and that as the advances have been lying unadjusted for a long time, the advance amount has accumulated to Rs. 10,07,916/- as on 31.12.2019. It has also been stated that as the petitioner refused to adjust or settle the aforesaid advance amount, the respondents have been compelled to issue the impugned order dated 25.02.2020 ordering for deduction of Rs. 30,000/- per month from the monthly pension of the petitioner till the total amount is recovered. It has also been stated that ample opportunity had been given to the petitioner asking him to adjust the advance amount by supplying to him the documents of Annual Accounts for the year 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and the details of advance pending for the year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 pertaining to Rs. 5,29,033/- unadjusted by the petitioner. 11. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar submitted that the process for adjustment/settlement of the aforesaid advance amount was initiated by the respondents more than seven years after the petitioner retired from service and that without holding any proper inquiry and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and by simply brushing aside the strong objection and denial raised by the petitioner and also without furnishing to him any of the relevant documents requested by the petitioner, the impugned order directing for deducting Rs. 30,000/- from the monthly pension of the petitioner had been issued by the authorities in a most arbitrary manner and in colorable exercise of power and accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside as the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 12. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel also submitted that as per the details of advances furnished by the Vice Chancellor, Manipur University under his letter dated 06.01.2020, the alleged advance amount of Rs. 12. Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel also submitted that as per the details of advances furnished by the Vice Chancellor, Manipur University under his letter dated 06.01.2020, the alleged advance amount of Rs. 5,29,033/- was taken by the petitioner during the period starting from 02.07.2010 to 07.02.2012 and that the respondents initiated the process demanding the petitioner for settlement/adjustment of the said advance amount as provided under Rule 323 (2) of the General Financial Rules, 2017, which is impermissible inasmuch as the provisions of General Financial Rules including Rule 323 (2) came into force w.e.f. 2017 only and the provision under Rule 323 (2) of the General Financial Rules cannot be applied retrospectively to an incident which occurred prior to the enforcement or coming in force of the provisions of the General Financial Rules. In view of the above, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the whole process initiated by the respondents including the impugned order for deducting money from the monthly pension of the petitioner are not sustainable in the eye of law and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. In support of his contention the counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) 'Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and others' reported in (2011) 6 SCC 508 wherein it has been held as under- '38. The State or the public authority which holds the property for the public or which has been assigned the duty of grant of largesse, etc. acts as a trustee and, therefore, has to act fairly and reasonably. Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so vested in him are meant to be exercised for public good and promoting the public interest. Every holder of a public office is a trustee. '39. State actions are required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Action of the State or its instrumentality must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Functioning of a 'democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination'. '39. State actions are required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Action of the State or its instrumentality must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. Functioning of a 'democratic form of Government demands equality and absence of arbitrariness and discrimination'. The rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and commands the authority concerned to act in accordance with law. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should neither be suggestive of discrimination, nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule, it is unpredictable and such a decision is antithesis to the decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. '40. The public trust doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The doctrine has grown from Article 21 of the Constitution. In essence, the action/order of the State or State instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides, as it would only be a case of colourable exercise of power. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. [Vide Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B., Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corpn., Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. and M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu]. (ii) 'State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha' reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 wherein it is laid down as under- '36. On an examination of the facts in that case, the submission on behalf of the authority that no prejudice had been caused to the appellant, was rejected, with the following observations: (Kashinath Dikshita case, SCC p.236, para 12) '12. Be that as it may, even without going into minute details it is evident that the appellant was entitled to have an access to the documents and statements throughout the course of the inquiry. He would have needed these documents and statements in order to cross-examine the 38 witnesses who were produced at the inquiry to establish the charges against him. So also at the time of arguments, he would have needed the copies of the documents. He would have needed these documents and statements in order to cross-examine the 38 witnesses who were produced at the inquiry to establish the charges against him. So also at the time of arguments, he would have needed the copies of the documents. So also he would have needed the copies of the documents to enable him to effectively cross-examine the witnesses with reference to the contents of the documents. It is obvious that he could not have done so if copies had not been made available to him. Taking an overall view of the matter we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity of exonerating himself.' '37. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid observations are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Non-disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to a government servant in the enquiry proceedings would clearly be denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges being enquired into against the government servant. '38. The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated in Tirlok Nath v. Union of India wherein it was held that non-supply of the documents amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity. It was held as follows: (SLR pp. 764-65) '... Had he decided to do so, the documents would have been useful to the appellant for cross-examining the witnesses who deposed against him. Again had the copies of the documents been furnished to the appellant he might, after perusing them, would have exercised his right under the rule and asked for an oral inquiry to be held. Therefore, in our view the failure of the inquiry officer to furnish the appellant with copies of the documents such as the first information report and the statements recorded at the Shidipura house and during the investigation must be held to have caused prejudice to the appellant in making his defence at the inquiry.' '39. The proposition of law that a government employee facing a departmental enquiry is entitled to all the relevant statements, documents and other materials to enable him to have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry against the charges is too well established to need any further reiteration. The proposition of law that a government employee facing a departmental enquiry is entitled to all the relevant statements, documents and other materials to enable him to have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry against the charges is too well established to need any further reiteration. Nevertheless given the facts of this case we may re-emphasise the law as stated by this Court in State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram: (SCC p. 156, paras 6-8) '6. The State contended that the respondent was not entitled to get copies of statements. The reasoning of the State was that the respondent was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and during the cross-examination the respondent would have the opportunity of confronting the witnesses with the statements. It is contended that the synopsis was adequate to acquaint the respondent with the gist of the evidence. '7. The meaning of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken is that the government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against charges on which inquiry is held. The government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so when he is told what the charges against him are. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying statements is that the government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to be examined against the government servant. Unless the statements are given to the government servant he will not be able to have an effective and useful cross-examination. '8. It is unjust and unfair to deny the government servant copies of statements of witnesses examined during investigation and produced at the inquiry in support of the charges levelled against the government servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of giving the government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken,' 14. '8. It is unjust and unfair to deny the government servant copies of statements of witnesses examined during investigation and produced at the inquiry in support of the charges levelled against the government servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of giving the government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken,' 14. After hearing the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on careful examination of the record of the present case, this Court found that the process for recovery of the alleged amount from the petitioner was initiated by the respondents more than seven years after the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and that the petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and raised strong objection against the respondents moved for deducting money from his monthly pension towards the recovery of the alleged advance amount until and unless the matter was finally settled after proper inquiry and verification. This Court also found that the respondents did not furnish any of the documents requested by the petitioner and issued the impugned order without considering the merit of the statements of the petitioner made in his defence and also without holding any proper inquiry. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that such action of the respondents have denied the petitioner the opportunity of exonerating himself from the charges made against him and the authorities have acted in a very arbitrary manner in issuing the impugned order. 15. This Court also found force in the contention raised by Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel that the whole process including the issuance of the impugned order for recovery of the alleged advance amount from the petitioner by deducting it from his monthly pension is impermissible or illegal for the simple reason that the provisions of the General Financial Rules (GFR) 2017 including the provisions under Rule 323 (2), which came into force only in 2017, cannot be applied retrospectively to the incidents which occurred during 02.07.2010 to 07.02.2012, much prior to the enforcement of the General Financial Rules and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 25.02.2020 is not sustainable in the eye of law. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned office order dated 25.02.2020 and the respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, deducted from the monthly pension of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of, however, without any cost.