JUDGMENT
M.R. Calla, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.5.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The appellants herein i.e. No. 1 and 2 were employed as Driver and Agriculture Assistant, respectively. A Govt. Vehicle i.e. Jeep No. RNI 7178 of Sheep Breeding Farm, Fatehpur was stolen on 3.9.1998. Appellant No. 1 was the Driver of the Jeep. The FIR was lodged at the Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur. At the time of theft of the Jeep, one Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Agriculture Assistant, Sheep Breeding Farm was also there with appellant No. 1 i.e. the Driver. Both the employees were subjected to an enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and an enquiry report was made on 29.12.1990. On 23.7.1992, the Director, Sheep & Wool wrote a letter to the Controller of the Rajasthan State Motor Garage, Jaipur for assessment of the Jeep in respect of which the theft had been committed and Controller of the State Motor Garage assessed the value of the Jeep at Rs. 50,000/-. Both these employees agreed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- and accordingly an order was passed by the Director against both the employees to deposit the amount of Rs. 50,000/- jointly by cash or by bank draft within a period of one month and they were also given the punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- but the same was not returned. A notice for Demand of Justice dt. 10.7.1995 was, therefore, given through Advocatef or refund of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited jointly by them through Bankers Cheque No. 001726 dated 22.12.1992. Thereafter, the jeep was recovered by the police and the release order in respect of this vehicle was passed by the Court on 5.7.1993 and since then, the jeep is lying with the department and the department is fully utilising it. The employees then moved an application on 12.7.1993 for refund of this amount of Rs. 50,000/- but the same was not returned. A notice for Demand of Justice dt. 10.7.1995 was, therefore, given through Advocate for refund of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith interest ” therein @ 24% p.a. from the date of deposit or to handover the Jeep, the revision of pay scales was also sought for appellant No. 1. However, no relief was given despite this Notice for Demand of Justice and, therefore, both the employees i.e. the present appellants filed the petition for return of the amount and for fixation of the pay for appellant No. 1 Hazarilal.
3. The learned Single Judge has observed that it was a case of disputed questions of fact and against the punishment order, the petitioner had the remedy of appeal and satisfactory explanation has not been given for delay and further that the petitioner could also file a civil suit for the recovery of the vehicle.
4. The appellants counsel while assailing this order dated 24.5.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge has submitted before us that it is a case of total non-adjudication of grievances of the appellants. It is a matter of record that the Jeep for loss of which the appellants were saddled with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- had been duly recovered and it was being utilised by the department. It was also an admitted position that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- had been Jointly deposited by the appellants. In this view of the matter, there is no question of filing any civil suit and even if against the order of punishment, the appeal had not been filed, the appellants could certainly claim the refund of the money deposited by them in lieu of the theft of the jeep. Once, the jeep in question had been recovered, the refund of this amount of Rs. 50,000/- should have followed as a natural consequence in their favour. Moment, the jeep was found to have been lost, the report was made on the basis of which the investigation was held and the jeep was recovered. The appellants therefore, could not be deprived of the amount deposited by them and for this purpose the directions could certainly be issued in writ jurisdiction and it was not necessary to relegate the appellants to the onerous remedy of a civil suit.
5. The punishment order was not under challenge and the learned counsel for the appellants contends that there was no question of challenging the punishment order by which the increment was withheld. The prayer for the refund of the amount with interest as was recovered from the appellants and also the direction for fixation of pay in accordance with the revision of pay scales was also sought on which aspect of the matter, there is no adjudication whatsoever although, the submission has been noted by the learned Single Judge in the order.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we therefore, direct that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was recovered from the present appellants be returned to them with interest as per the prevailing bank rates from time to time right from the date of the deposit till the amount is made good and so far as the fixation claim for Hazarilal is concerned, the concerned authority shall pass appropriate orders in this regard as per the revised pay scales for which the appellant No. 1 may also make a proper and detailed representation before the concerned authorities within a period of one month and the same shall also be decided by the competent authority within another month from the date of receipt of such representation.
7. The order dated 24.5.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge which has been impugned in this appeal is hereby set-aside.
8. As a consequence of it, the writ stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.