R.R. CHAURASIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a retired Sub Engineer of Water Resources Department, has approached this Court ventilating his grievance against the action of respondents of recovering an amount of Rs.40,179/ from his retiral dues, alleging that without conducting any enquiry whatsoever only on the strength of an order issued treating certain loss caused to the State on account of lapses of the petitioner, though a lesser amount of recovery was directed, the huge amount is recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. It is contended that for any misconduct a detail enquiry should have been conducted, but at no point of time any such enquiry was conducted. On the other hand, a report was given by a Sub Divisional Officer, on the instructions of the Executive Engineer that the petitioner was ever since trying to shift the cement bags stocked in a particular place without any use to the other place, but no action was taken on such correspondence made by the petitioner. It is contended that if any enquiry would have been conducted, the petitioner would have pointed out that he was not responsible to any loss caused to the State and, thus, was not liable to make payment of any such amount.

(2.) : It is contended that the petitioner stood retired on 31.8.2006 from the post of Sub Engineer in the office of Sub Divisional Officer Badamalahra, District Chhatarpur. While the petitioner was working at the said place, earlier an order was issued on 30.10.2002 directing that a proportionate amount of loss caused to the State on account of spoiling 225 bags of cement was to be recovered. It was stated in the said order that a total loss of Rs.22,387.50 ps was caused to the State. On receipt of this memo, the petitioner submitted a representation on 18.11.2002 categorically indicating that he was not responsible for any loss caused to the State. It was pointed out that such cement was available, but the superior officers of the petitioner though were apprised of availability of such bags of cement made the purchases of cement from the market for the purposes of Government work and the said cement was not used though was not required for any work to be carried out by the petitioner. When the correspondence in this respect was made, one of the Executive Engineer directed the Sub Divisional Officer to conduct an inspection of such a fact, who made an enquiry and submitted a report on 20.7.2001 categorically saying that the petitioner was not responsible for any loss caused to the State Government on account of wastage of the aforesaid cement bags as the petitioner was trying his level best to shift the said cement from the place where it was stocked. Because of the rain, the said bags of cement were spoiled. This report was sent to the Executive Engineer by the immediate superior of the petitioner and it was said that the house where the said cement bags were stocked was taken on rent and there was a dispute with respect to the payment of rent of the said house. The amount in that respect was required to be sanctioned and the cement bags if have spoiled, were to be right off. It is contended that again despite making several representations, nothing was done and, ultimately, after the retirement of the petitioner saying that huge loss was caused to the State Government on account of lapses of the petitioner, direction was given for recovery of such amount from the petitioner. How such loss is calculated and how such an amount of Rs.40,501/ is recovered from the petitioner, is not explained to him and, therefore, such a recovery is bad in law. In view of these allegations, the petitioner has claimed the following reliefs :

(3.) : Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.