IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 1921 of 2004
...
Chhote Lal ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The District Education Officer, Dhanbad.
3. Head Master, Lodna Colliery High School, Dhanbad.
4. The Accountant General (A&E), Bihar & Jharkhand... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s. M. B. Lal & Manoj Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent-State : - J.C. to G.P. III.
For the Respondent No. 4 : - Mr. S. Shrivastava, Advocate.
...
4/18.01.2010
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this
case is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in the Government School.
He has retired from service on 31st January, 2000, whereafter his retiral benefits was
to be paid to him. However, on the ground that he absented from duty, by
participating in the strike by the teaching and the non-teaching staff, and on the
further ground that with the connivance of the then Headmaster of the concerned
School, he made false entries of attendance in the Attendance Register, an order was
passed by the District Education Officer for recovery of the amounts which was paid
by way of salary to the petitioner for the strike period. The petitioner has challenged
this order of the Respondents and prayed for a direction not only to quash the
impugned order of the District Education Officer, but also for a direction upon the
Respondents to refund the sum of Rs.42,042/- together with interest, which has been
recovered from the payable amount of the petitioner’s Gratuity.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not
participate in the strike and in fact, had even given a letter of assurance that he does
not desire to participate in the strike. On considering the assurance given by the
petitioner, he was even deputed to work as the In-charge Headmaster of the School
and accordingly, he had discharged his duties and his attendance was also marked
genuinely. Subsequently, an enquiry was also conducted in respect of all such
teaching and non-teaching staffs to ascertain as to who, amongst them, have
participated in the strike and who did not. Being satisfied that the petitioner did not
participate in the strike, salary was paid to him for the strike period. Thereafter, no
issue was raised regarding the payment made to the petitioner and he had retired
from service in the month of January, 2000. Subsequently, it was much after his
retirement that the impugned order has been passed for recovery of the amount from
his Gratuity and that too, without issuing any show cause notice nor affording any
opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to why such amount should not be
recovered and even without initiating any proceeding under Rule 43 B of the Pension
Rules.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand submits that
the petitioner had remained absent from duty by participating in the strike for the
period till the strike was called off subsequently, but acknowledges that as per the
averments contained in the counter affidavit, it appears that no notice was issued to
the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order for recovery of the amount
and further appears that no proceeding under Rule 43 B of the Pension Rules was
initiated against the petitioner.
5. In the light of the submissions and the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is obvious that the impugned order of recovery of the amount from the
petitioner’s Gratuity has been passed without complying with the mandatory
provisions of procedural law and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Such order cannot possibly be sustained in law and is therefore, hereby set aside. The
concerned authorities of the Respondents are directed to refund the entire amount of
Rs.42,042/- alongwith the interest @ six per cent per annum to the petitioner
calculated from the date of recovery till the amount is finally paid, within three
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
6. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.
7. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the Respondents.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK