P NAGARATHINAPANDIAN FORMERLY SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER RETD VELLORE Vs. ACCOUNTS OFFICER TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the letter No: Pension 5/8455/06 dated 23.10.2006 issued by the Accounts Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai - 35, the first respondent herein and the proceedings of the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Vellore Housing Unit, Vellore, the 2nd respondent herein made in No: TI/5935/01 dated 15.05.2006, quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned and forbear the respondents herein from in any manner effecting the order of recovery from the pension of the petitioner and consequently disburse the amounts withheld by the respondents within a short date that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are, petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in March 1965. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Executive Engineer and finally to the post of Superintending Engineer. He retired on 30.11.1998 on reaching the age of superannuation and has been getting his pension regularly. Suddenly, there was a short remittance of Rs.2,862/- in his pension and when he sent a representation questioning the short remittance, the 1st respondent wrote back on 23.10.2006 stating that a sum of Rs.86,743/- has been ordered to be recovered from the pension of the petitioner in 30 installments at the rate of Rs.2,862/- and enclosed the copy of the proceedings dated 15.05.2006. Thus, the letter dated 15.05.206 was communicated to the petitioner only on 17.10.2006. From the order of the 2nd respondent petitioner understood that while selling the dead stock materials in public auction in the Vellore Housing Unit at Vellore, the Housing Board has sustained notional loss and the same has been ordered to be recovered from various officials who worked during the relevant period. Challenging such recovery petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. A.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the alleged irregularity was detected only in the year 2006 when the dead stock materials were sold in open auction. He would submit that the case of the Housing Board was that the writ petitioner while working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Vellore Housing Unit of Tamil Nadu Housing Board has procured materials. But due to non utilization of such procured materials, some of the materials have become dead stocks. Those dead stocks have been disposed of by open auction and the difference between the book value and the auction value was ordered to be recovered from the persons responsible and thus, recovery proceedings were issued to the persons responsible for the loss including the petitioner herein. He would further submit that it is an admitted fact that in respect of the petitioner, the actual loss between the book value and the account value of the materials is only a sum of Rs.8,643/- and due to a typographical error it was noted as Rs.86,743/- instead of Rs.8,643/- and when the writ petitioner brought this mistake to the notice of the authorities concerned, the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Vellore Housing Unit, has given a revised proceedings and had ordered to recover only a sum of Rs.8,643/- instead of Rs. 86,743/- and accordingly, the excess amount recovered from petitioner's pension was also refunded to the petitioner. As regards the right of the Housing Board to order recovery from the pension, Mr.Vijaya Kumar submits that G.O. Ms. No: 702, Finance (Pension) Department dated 07.10.1988 provides for recovering the Government dues if any including over payment of pension, etc. from the D.A. / A.D.A. on Pension/ Family Pension without the consent of the pensioner and that in the present case, in fact, the petitioner has also given a consent letter for recovery to the effect that he is willing to make good the loss if any caused to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as a result of negligence while in service and therefore, the order of recovery cannot be held to be unsustainable.