VIJAYA PRAMODKUMAR PAITHANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Pramod Sadashivrao Paithankar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased Paithankar"), have challenged the judgment and order dated 8th August, 2003 passed in Original Application No.445 of 1994 by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad, ("the Tribunal" for short) confirming the orders dated 28th February, 1994 and 1st March, 1994 passed by respondent No.2 - Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad directing recovery of Rs.86,514.45 from the pensionery benefits of the deceased Paithankar.

(2.) The deceased Paithankar was serving as a Godown Keeper for Government Godown at Partur, District Jalna. Respondent No.3 - Collector, Jalna passed nine orders between the years 1987 and 1990 holding the deceased Paithankar responsible for loss of food grains due to his negligence in keeping them in good condition and directed recovery of the total amount of Rs.86,514.45 from the deceased Paithankar. The petitioner challenged the said orders by filing an appeal before respondent No.2, but did not succeed. He, therefore, challenged the orders of respondent No.2 before the Tribunal by filing the above- numbered original application. During the pendency of the said application, he died on 22nd January, 1999. The petitioners got themselves substituted for the deceased Paithankar and prosecuted the application. The Tribunal rejected that application as per the impugned order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.3 did not conduct any inquiry under the provisions the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, ("Rules of 1979" for short) and without following the principles of natural justice, directed recovery of the above-mentioned amount from the deceased Paithankar. He further submits that as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ("Rules of 1982" for short), the Government dues as prescribed in sub-rule (3) only can be recovered by the Government from the Government servant due for retirement. He submits that the liability for the loss due to negligence does not fall under sub-rule (3) of Rule 132. Therefore, the above-mentioned amount was not liable to be recovered from the pensionery benefits of the deceased Paithankar. He submits that the impugned orders directing recovery of the above-mentioned amount from the deceased Paithankar are totally illegal. On the basis of the said orders, petitioner No.1, who is the widow of the deceased Paithankar, could not get family pension. He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders may be set aside and the respondent Authorities may be directed to sanction family pension to petitioner No.1.