NIRANJAN TRIPATHY Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as a Development Officer in New India Assurance Company Ltd., has filed this application seeking to quash Annexure-2 dated 26.10.1995, the warning letter issued under paragraph 11 of General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scale and Other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "1976 Scheme") and Annexure-5, the letter dated 21.03.1997 by which an amount of Rs. 15,156/- was recovered from the salary of the petitioner.

(2.) The short facts of the case, in hand is that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector by the order of Regional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., dated 18.01.1984, pursuant to which he joined as a Probationer on 30.01.1984. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Development Officer and he was confirmed against the said post on 01.02.1995. While he was so continuing, he received a warning letter from the Regional Manager on 26.10.1995 under Para-11 of the 1976 Scheme as the cost ratio exceeded the stipulated limits for the years, 1992-93,1993-94,1994-95. The petitioner filed a representation on 20.12.1995 for exonerating him from the said charge with a prayer to transfer him to some other place for better performance and working but the same was not taken into consideration. Again he filed another representation on 01.03.1996, but the same was also not taken into consideration. Ultimately on 21.03.1997 the Divisional Manager intimated the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 15,156/- is to be recovered from his salary out of which Rs. 1,356/- was already deducted from March, 1997 salary. Thereafter, a lump sum of Rs. 7,800/- was also deducted from March, 1997 salary by debiting code 5473 and the balance Rs. 6,000/- was to be recovered from his salary in ten equal instalment at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month ending with January, 1998 salary.

(3.) Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that the action pursuant to Annexure-2 and recovery made in Annexure-5 having not been done in compliance to principles of natural justice, the same should be quashed and the amounts so recovered without following due procedure of law, should be refunded by the authority with interest. It is further urged that the order passed in Annexures-2 and 5 are per se illegal since before passing the orders, the petitioners was neither given any opportunity to show cause nor any personal hearing. Otherwise also the orders have caused civil consequences which could not have been passed without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the order so passed are vitiated and as such, the order is without authority of law, Para-11 of 1976 Scheme does not confer any right to make such deduction without taking the officer know the cause of such deduction. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court as well this Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan and others, AIR 1988 SC 1301, Kesar Enterprises Ltd. v. State of U.P AIR 2011 SC 2709 and J.C. Budharaja v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1990 Orissa 6.