SURENDRA LAL Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.11.1989 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition) issued on 30.1.1190 by which an amount of Rs. 39065.00 had been directed to be recovered from his salary at the rate, of Rs. 500/ - per month. The amount, sought to be recovered, is said to be the shortage of stores during the period in which the petitioner was posted Store Keeper in the office of the Executive Engineer, Char Shakha Nirman Khand, Deoria.

(2.) THIS petition was filed in the year 1990. The writ petition was admitted on 17.4.1990 and the stay order was passed on the same day staying the operation of the impugned order dated 9.11.1989. It was, however, made open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner for realising of the said amount from the petitioner in accordance with law. No counter affidavit has been filed in the case. On 11.9.2000, last opportunity was given to the learned standing counsel to file counter affidavit but he has not availed of that opportunity.

(3.) IT has been submitted by Sri S.K. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without considering petitioner's explanation, and that an enquiry was initiated but before the conclusion of that enquiry, the impugned order was passed for deducting the amount of shortage from the salary of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was asked for explanation, which was submitted on 21.7.1988 (annexure -4 to the writ petition). The order dated 28th February, 1988 by which the amount of shortage was directed to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner, does not show, that the reply given by the petitioner was considered at ail. The impugned order dated 9th November, 1989 also does not show that tile -petitioner's explanation was considered by the respondents. The impugned order states that the recovery be made from the salary of the petitioner and that the application/representation of the petitioner shall be considered separately. In view of the above facts, I find that the respondents have not considered the explanation of the petitioner at all and without concluding the enquiry the amount in question was sought to be recovered from him. The impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.