SURESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since in both the cases, issue for determination is one and the same, whether despite denial by the employee of allegation of embezzlement of lacs of rupees, without any departmental proceeding or any judicial proceeding (criminal case), any recovery can be made from that employee and his retiral dues can be withheld, therefore, both the petitions are being heard together and decided by this common order. For convenience, most of the documents have been referred from WPS No. 8586/2019.

(2.) Facts of the case in nutshell are that, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable (Mechanic) on 1/7/1982 in the police department. On 11/6/2011, while he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector (Mechanic), he was directed to do duty in 'Shourya Petrol Pump', Police Line, Raipur (henceforth, referred to as 'petrol pump') without any written/formal order. From 11/6/2011 to 7/4/2014, he performed duty in said petrol pump under oral instruction of respondent No. 4/5. Thereafter, upon oral instruction, he was returned to Police Line, Raipur in M.T. Branch. Petitioner was holding technical post and in the petrol pump also, he was looking after mechanical fault. Sole in-charge of the petrol pump was respondent No. 4/5. Under oral direction and under pressure of respondent No. 4/5, petitioner looked after transaction of petrol pump, whereas he was not having any experience of keeping books of account in respect of transaction of petrol pump. He performed his duty honestly, but vide communication dtd. 23/3/2014 (Annexure P-3) and 4- 9-2014 (Annexure P-5), respondent No. 4/5 informed him that, upon physical verification of books of account of petrol pump, deficiency of Rs.30,47,345.91 and Rs.27,23,659.00 respectively was found and he was directed to deposit said amount. Under pressure, the petitioner deposited Rs.8.00 lacs twice. Vide communication dtd. 7/9/2015 (Annexure P-6), respondent No. 4/5 informed that as per audit report of petrol pump, during in-charge period of petitioner i.e. from 12/6/2011 to 7/4/2014, deficiency of Rs.80,49,387.34 has been found in account books, therefore, he was directed to submit explanation. Vide Annexure P-7 dtd. 8/9/2015, petitioner submitted his explanation stating inter alia that he was unknown about functioning of petrol pump and, therefore, he had refused to perform duty there, further, he has not committed any theft or mistake and due to such allegation of huge embezzlement, he has been highly upset. Despite that, respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Police, Raipur issued show cause notice/adjustment notice (Annexure P-1) dtd. 11/9/2015 stating inter alia that, on being audited the account books of petrol pump from firm of Chartered Accountant during the period of 12/6/2011 to 7/4/2014, deficit of Rs.80,49,387.34 has been found, as such, he was directed to clarify his position and ensure adjustment. Reply vide Annexure P-8 dtd. 14/9/2015 was submitted by the petitioner, claiming himself to be innocent. But, without considering reply of petitioner, respondent No. 3 passed impugned order (Annexure P-2) dtd. 16/11/2015 directing deduction of Rs.10,000.00 per month from his salary, which continuously deducted from his salary. Challenging aforesaid show cause/adjustment notice (Annexure P-1) dtd. 11/9/2015 and recovery order (Annexure P-2) dtd. 16/11/2015 issued by the respondent No. 3/ Superintendent of Police, Raipur, petitioner filed WPS No. 8586/2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, during said period i.e. 12/6/2011 to 7/4/2014, he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector (Mechanic) in police line, but under oral instruction of respondent No. 4/5, he performed duty at the petrol pump, he was not in-charge of the petrol pump, rather, respondent No. 4/5 was in-charge of the petrol pump and under his oral instruction, sometimes, he used to look after the work of transaction of petrol pump, that too, under supervision of respondent No. 4/5, else, at that period, his main duty was to look after mechanical fault of the petrol pump. Even otherwise, since he was not acquainted with the accountancy work or having account training, therefore, he could not have performed the duty of maintaining account book of transaction of petrol pump. In the month of April, 2014, he was removed from petrol pump and under oral instruction, he was performing his duty at Police Line, M.T. branch. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, since initial explanation, the petitioner was showing his innocence and he has specifically stated that, neither he has committed any theft nor any wrongful act in the petrol pump. Despite that, he was compelled to deposit huge amount, as such, he has deposited Rs.8.00 lacs under threat and pressure as respondent authorities did not consider his explanation. It is further submitted that without conducting any departmental inquiry or any criminal proceeding, petitioner has been leveled allegation of embezzlement of more than one crore rupees and has been compelled to make adjustment of amount vide Annexure P-1 and P-2. Learned counsel further submitted that, even as per the preliminary inquiry report (Annexure R-4), the petitioner has denied allegation of said embezzlement in his deposition, despite that, without any inquiry or criminal proceeding, impugned order of recovery has been made, huge amount has been recovered from the petitioner and his retiral dues have also been withheld. Though after the order passed by this Court on 30/8/2024, 50% amount of pension, gratuity and leave encashment has been paid to the petitioner.