R K SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manas Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 29.7.2006 passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bundelkhand Region, Jhansi. He has also prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay his retiral benefits to the tune of Rs.4,49,870.79 withheld by the respondents from the amount of gratuity, leave encashment etc. and to re-fix his pension and pay 18% interest on the total amount.

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Overseer (re-designated as Junior Engineer) in Public Works Department of the State on 20.11.1964. In the year 1989, he was transferred to District Mahoba and worked there upto July, 1996 and thereafter, he was again transferred to District Banda. In August, 1993 the Executive Engineer-respondent no.4 directed the petitioner to hand over the charge to Shri T.P. Upadhyay and Shri Kameshwar Prasad, Junior Engineers and pursuant to the directions, the petitioner handed over the charge on 23.11.1993. The Superintending Engineer, Banda-respondent no.5 constituted a Committee on 22.6.1994 for enquiring the charges of financial and other irregularities levelled against the petitioner. On 5.7.1994 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to submit his reply within 15 days. A reminder letter was also issued to him on 1.9.1994. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 4.9.1994. The Work Superintendent passed an order on 30.9.1994 appointing Shri V.P. Pradhan and Shri Vipin Pachauria, Engineers to enquire into the matter in the light of the order dated 3.6.1994 after making an enquiry on the site and the records and to submit its report. The enquiry committee submitted its report on 21.11.1995. However, the same was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2001 from the office of Public Works Department (Provincial Division), Banda. Thereafter, the enquiry committee submitted its report on 20.7.2001. The said report was also not supplied to the petitioner. The Superintending Engineer passed an order on 13.9.2001 stating that due to negligence of the petitioner, the department had incurred a loss of Rs.6,42,000/- which was required to be recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a representation on 23.9.2001 against the order dated 13.9.2001. On the representation of the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer directed the Executive Engineer on 16.10.2001 to re-examine the matter of petitioner and submit a report. In compliance of the order dated 16.10.2001, no decision had been taken by the authority concerned on account of which the petitioner has not been paid his pensionary benefits i.e. full pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. At present, the petitioner is only getting 90% pension. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.2001, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation to the Chief Engineer-respondent no.2 on 24.12.2004. When the respondents did not decide the grievance raised by the petitioner through representation dated 24.12.2004, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.75080 of 2005, which was disposed of on 9.12.2005 directing the respondent no.2 to decide petitioner's representation dated 24.12.2004. By the impugned order dated 29.7.2006 the respondent no.2 rejected the petitioner's representation and directed the respondent no.3 to initiate recovery proceedings of Rs.4,49,870.79 against the petitioner.