ABDUL SABAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally with the consent of the parties. In view of the developments during the pendency of the petition, the only issue which requires determination by this Court is whether the respondent could have ordered and adjusted an amount of Rs. 96,029/- from the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner upon his retirement vide Annexure P/8 impugned in this petition.

(2.) Quintessential facts for determination of the short controversy are that the petitioner worked as Sub-Engineer in the department of irrigation (Water Resources) in the State of Chhattisgarh and retired upon attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31/03/05. In the process of clearing ail the dues, the petitioner submitted an application dated 15/03/05 (Annexure P/2) praying for issuance of No Dues Certificate. After about five months, the petitioner submitted another application on 12/09/05 (Annexure P/3) for clearance and release of all the retiral benefits as well as pension. At this stage, the impugned memo dated 22/09/05 was issued to the petitioner informing that an amount of Rs. 96,029/- is recoverable under the head "Miscellaneous Advance". The petitioner, by the aforesaid memo, was asked to give his consent for adjustment of the said amount from leave encashment benefits payable to him on his retirement. The petitioner, however, disputed any liability towards recovery vide his response dated 27/09/05 (Annexure P/4). It is relevant to note that even before that, the petitioner had submitted application vide Annexure P/3 for release of retiral benefits by stating that any pending case relating to recovery against miscellaneous advance be decided.

(3.) To assail the correctness and validity of so called notice dated 22/09/05 (Annexure P/1) and memo dated 15/09/08 (Annexure P/8) whereby, adjustment has been made against gratuity, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned action is in violation of principles of natural justice apart from being in violation of provisions contained in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the amount could have been recovered only by holding an enquiry in the manner prescribed in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 under the authority of the Governor as the petitioner had already retired from Government Service, in his submission, neither any charge sheet was issued to him nor any enquiry was held. Therefore, in the absence of any finding of misconduct, no recovery could be made from the petitioner under the garb of dues against miscellaneous advances. Further submission is that in any case, once the petitioner has not admitted his liability towards any recovery including a recovery against miscellaneous advances, the principles of natural justice obliged the respondents to hear the petitioner against proposed recovery and then only make adjustment against retiral dues payable to the petitioner, in support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gous Ali Beg Vs. State of C.G. and ors., 2012 LawSuit(Chh) 163.