BEBITAI BABARAO JAGTAP Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, a widow, has challenged impugned order dated 3.10.2001, whereby the respondents deducted the pension amount of the petitioner's deceased husband, who was employee, expired on 10.6.2001, even after filing reply to the showcausenotice about the penalty, as contemplated in Rule 4 (iii) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, which is reproduced as under :

(3.) Admittedly, the deceased employee replied to the show causenotice but there was no decision taken by the respondents. Another showcausenotice was issued, which was replied by the petitioners and denied the same being not aware of the factual aspect as well as the alleged recovery mentioned therein.