IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 5/4/2002.
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.10012 OF 1999.
V.N.Kulandaisamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Khadi and Village Industries Board,
Tamil Nadu, represented by its
Chief Executive Officer,
Kuralagam,
Chennai-600 108.
2.The Assistant Director,
Khadi and Village Industries,
Tiruchirapalli. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi
For respondents: Mr.B.Dinakumar
:O R D E R
The above writ petition has been filed praying to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second
respondent in Pro.Na.Ka.No.8237/93/K2 dated 11.4.1995 and that of the
first respondent in Pro.R.C.No.46196/P2/97, 1999, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.66,433.90
recovered from the retirement and pensionary benefits of the petitioner
within a timeframe with 18% interest p.a. till the date of repayment.
2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and
upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the
petitioner, after rendering a service of 36 years in the respondents
Board, had retired on attaining the age of su n on 28.1.1994 in the
category of Assistant Grade-I and at the time of his retirement, there
was neither any enquiry nor even a charge-memo. pending against the
petitioner, but nearly after six months of his retirement, the second
respondent, had, in a nd by his proceeding in Pro.Na.Ka.No.8237/93/K2
dated 29.6.1994 holding that the petitioner was responsible for the
unrecovered loan amount of Rs.1,39,120-45 relating to the periods 1986-88
and 1991-93, directed the petitioner to collect the said dues l est an
order of recovery to follow and ultimately in consideration of the
representations of the petitioner and the other records, the second
respondent found the petitioner responsible for non-recovery of a sum of
Rs.66,433.90 thereby recovering and ad justing the said sum from the
pensionary benefits of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred an appeal to the first respondent and since the said appeal
also came to be dismissed by the first respondent thereby confirming the
order of the second respondent, the petitioner has come forward to file
the above writ petition.
3. It is argued on the part of the respondents that
while the petitioner was employed in the respondent Board, he sold khadi
on credit basis to various Government servants over and above their basic
pay and he ought to have collected the am question in equal installments
within ten months and wiped out the loan dues as per practice in vogue in
the Board and hence the petitioner is liable to make good the loss
sustained by the Board and hence the impugned orders are passed
recovering the sai d loss from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner
and would pray to dismiss the above writ petition.
4. In the above facts and circumstances, it is pertinent
to note an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in
w.P.No.5982 of 1987, dated 3.7.2001 wherein under identical circumstances
in respect of another employee of the very dents Board, when a similar
attempt was made to withhold the sum of the pensionary benefits, the
learned Judge has held:
“It is not disputed that the amounts allegedly due are referable to the
purchases made by the Government servants attached to the department. I
fail to understand how the said amount could be recovered from the
petitioner or how he could be held respons ible to make good the said
dues. While acting as a Manager, he is only a staff of the Board. When
the purchases are permitted to be made on credit by Government servants,
the Khadi Board undertakes the risk of supplying the materials on credit.
In or der to ensure the prompt payment of the dues in Form-13, the
Government also obtains an undertaking from the purchaser to the effect
of authorising his pay drawing officer to recover the amount from the
monthly pay. Even apart from the entitlement for s uch recovery under
Section 23, the Khadi Board is entitled to proceed against the purchaser
to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. By no stretch of
imagination, a staff of the Board can be held responsible for the
recovery of the said am ount much less can there be any hold on the
retirement benefits.”
With such observations, the learned single Judge of this Court had set
aside the impugned order therein, following which another learned single
Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.497 to 499 of 1997, by his order dated
11.10.2001 while setting aside the impug ned orders, had directed the
respondents to release the payment which was withheld with interest at
the rate of 12% p.a. from the date the same was withheld till the date
of payment.
5. Since the subject matter is one squarely falling in
line with both the above said orders earlier passed by this Court, this
Court is of the firm view that a similar order passed in this matter also
would meet the ends of justice.
In result,
(i)the above writ petition is allowed following the orders of this Court
made in W.P.No.5982 of 1997, dated 3.7.2001 and W.P.Nos.497 to 499 of
1997, dated 11.10.2001.
(ii)The order of the second respondent in Pro.Na.Ka.No.8237/83/K2 dated
11.4.1995 and the order of the first respondent in Pro.R.C.No.46196/P2/97
dated 7.1.1999 are hereby quashed.
(iii)The respondents are hereby directed to release the sum of
Rs.66,433.90 (Rupees Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Three and
Ninety Paise Only), which was recovered from the pensionary benefits of
the petitioner, and pay the same to the petitione r within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, with interest
at 12% p.a. from the date the said sum was withheld till the date of
payment.
However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
Index: Yes/No
Index for Internet: Yes
Rao
5.4.2002.
sd./- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
1.The Chief Executive Officer,
Khadi and Village Industries Board,
Tamil Nadu, Kuralagam,
Chennai-600 108.
2.The Assistant Director,
Khadi and Village Industries,
Tiruchirapalli.
Rao
V.KANAGARAJ, J.
Order in W.P.No.10012 of 1999
5\4\2002.