KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition the petitioner Kirshna Kumar who retired as Deputy Excise Commissioner, has challenged the order dated 03.11.1995, (as contained in annexure no.6 to the writ petition) deducting Rs. 1,66,580/- from his gratuity amount and deducting 10% of the pension admissible to him and as prayed for issuance of direction restoring all benefits of service to him and for releasing his gratuity amount forthwith

(2.) The Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 30.05.1991 alleging that due to his negligence and misconduct the Government suffered a loss of Rs. 40780/- in the financial year 1983-84 while he was posted at Deoria and further loss of Rs. 1,25,800/- while he was posted at Allahabad. The Joint Excise Commissioner who was appointed enquiry officer to enquire into the charges, conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 30.12.1991, as contained in annexure no.5 to the writ petition, suggesting to be discharged of the allegations. The controlling Officer examined the enquiry report. The Government did not agree with the recommendations of the enquiry officer and passed the impugned order as contained in the annexure no.6 to the writ petition deducting Rs. 1,66,580/- from the total gratuity amount of the petitioner and further in deducting 10% of the pension admissible to him.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the Government on the ground that deduction from gratuity is permissible under section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 only in the case of termination of an employee whereas his services were not terminated by the Government rather he retired from service on 31.05.1991 and thus the deduction in gratuity was not permissible and since he was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order of deduction of pension therefore principles of natural justice has been violated. His further case is that the enquiry officer had recommended for discharging him from the allegations and in this back drop since the Government disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer he should have been given an opportunity of hearing but the same was not given and, therefore, the punishment is bad in the eye of law and fit to be quashed by the Court.