BADRI PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order of recovery dated 13-3-03 issued by respondent No. 3 for recovering the amount of Rs. 13,709/- at the rate of Rs. 132/- per month retrospectively from the month of February, 1988 with penal interest on the ground that excess drawal was made by the petitioner from his GPF Account No. ED/nmp/46870.

(2.) THE petitioner while working as Head Master at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Mohna, District Gwalior, retired from service on 31-8-88. After retirement of the petitioner, the respondents paid all retiral benefits such as gratuity, P. F. etc. and a no dues certificate was also issued in his favour and on that basis pension of the petitioner has been sanctioned and he is getting his pension since 1-9-89. G. P. F. final payment case of the petitioner was forwarded by the employer on 27-7-1989; whereas the petitioner was retired on 31-1-88. During investigation, it was found that due to excess drawal, there was a negative balance of Rs. 13,709/- including interest upto 10/89, in the G. P. F. Account of the petitioner, which was recoverable from the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 issued letters dated 21-3-1989 asking the Department to confirm the deposits and drawals. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner has been reviewed and all drawals and credits have been got confirmed from the Department and the case of the petitioner has been re-examined and it was found that a negative balance of Rs. 8,962/- including interest upto 12/96 recoverable from the petitioner with penal interest at the rate of 14. 5% in terms of Rule 14 (7) of the M. P. G. P. F. Rules, 1955. Respondent No. 3 vide impugned communication-cum-order dated 22-12-99 (Annexure A-l) intimated the petitioner and respondent No. 2.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that before passing the impugned communication/order dated 13-3-03, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner nor he received letters dated 7-3-1990, 22-3-1990 and 5-6-1990 nor the respondent No. 2 Department ever intimated the petitioner about the alleged recovery and, therefore, the impugned action of the respondent No. 3 is in violation of the principle of natural justice. On merit, it is stated by the petitioner that he had not drawn excess amount from his G. P. F. account.