Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 490 (JHR)

State of Jharkhand v. Rajbali Ram

2023-04-10

ANANDA SEN, SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, J. I.A. No. 1276 of 2023 1. There is a delay of 237 days in preferring this intra-court appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 3. It is apparent from the records that a substantial amount of public money is involved in this case. 4. The order impugned was passed on 15.03.2022 and the appeal has been filed on 23.12.2022. 5. By virtue of the directives given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03 of 2020, the limitation shall be supposed to start from 1st of July, 2022. Of course, even then there is a delay in preferring the appeal of about four months, however, it is further borne out from the records that the delay has been caused because of laches on the part of the certain Government officials in processing the file. For the laches of the Government officials, the interest of State and society should not be allowed to suffer. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay. Moreover, we see that reasonable opportunity was granted to the respondent-writ petitioner to file a counter affidavit/objection to the application for condonation of delay, but no objection has been filed thereon. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the intra-court is hereby condoned. L.P.A. No. 667 of 2022 6. With the consent of the parties, this matter is taken up on merits for its final disposal. 7. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State of Jharkhand assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2786 of 2016 on 15.03.2022 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed and Office Memorandum No. 195 dated 19.12.2015 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) for recovery of the public money from the petitioner was quashed. 8. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 9. The petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in the Department of Road Construction. 8. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 9. The petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in the Department of Road Construction. He filed the writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing Memo No. 195 dated 19.12.2015 by which the Last Pay Certificate was issued to the petitioner informing that a sum of Rs.8,30,403.57 was to be deducted from his salary as the petitioner could not account for the said amount advanced to him for implementation of the various government schemes during the period 1991 to 2002. The petitioner also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from making any further recovery from his salary or retirement dues. 10. The petitioner had joined the service as a Junior Engineer in the Road Construction Department on 03.02.1984. On 17.09.2008 the Superintending Engineer of Rural Works Department took a decision that there is outstanding amount to be recovered from the petitioner to the tune of approximately Rs.8.00 Lakhs and handing over keys of the godown. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations but no decision was taken thereon and thereafter he approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition with the aforesaid prayers. 11. The specific case of the respondents-State (appellants herein) is that the petitioner while working as a Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer since 02.02.1990, during the financial year 1991-92 at Rural Works Department, Works Division, Simdega-I, different Government schemes were executed and he took an advance of Rs.8,30,403.57. The specific case of the State is that he never submitted the accounts for the aforesaid advances. Several letters were written to him for submission of the accounts. When he did not reply the same, a notice was issued also in the newspaper but the petitioner failed to make any reply or submitted defence in his favour. It is the further specific case of the State Government that the petitioner being a Government Servant is responsible for giving accounts of public money and any advance taken should either be spent on execution of the schemes or return the monies to the public exchequer. In this case, he has neither spent the money nor returned the same and, therefore, an order for recovery of the same was passed against him and impugned Annexure 8 was also issued. 12. In this case, he has neither spent the money nor returned the same and, therefore, an order for recovery of the same was passed against him and impugned Annexure 8 was also issued. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the specific case of the State Government was that the public money advanced to the petitioner was not accounted for and that is why the matter is not relating to settled entitlement of the petitioner-respondent, rather, it is the money that belonged to the people or the State Exchequer which has not been accounted for. The learned counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge misdirected himself and on a wrong assumption of the fact decided the case relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White-Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and considered it to be a money received in excess of the entitlement of the petitioner. 13. We have carefully examined the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. At paragraph 6 the learned Single Judge has held that he is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. He has further observed that the law is well settled on the point of recovery in the aforesaid case of the State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summarized the situation and held that it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. While deciding this issue the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in certain cases recovery cannot be made from the employees who have retired. However, the aforesaid reported case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was deciding the question of recovery of excess payments of entitlement of the petitioner or an employee of the State Government, but here it is not a case of entitlement of the present petitioner (respondent herein), rather it is the case of the State that the money belonging to the State Exchequer was given in advance to the petitioner for executing certain development works and he has failed to deliver execution of the work or returned the money. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge completely misjudged the facts of the case and decided the case in an erroneous manner by committing erroneous findings of facts. In that view of the matter, we feel constrained to allow the appeal and remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge to decide whether the petitioner has actually executed the work or has returned the work or there is any submission made by the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the money given to him in advance for execution of the work and dispose of the writ application accordingly. Since the petitioner-respondent is a retired person and the matter relates to public fund, we hereby further direct that the matter may be decided as expeditiously as possible by the learned Single Judge. 14. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The case is returned to the learned Single Judge for hearing afresh. 15. All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of. 16. Urgent Certified copies as per Rules.