AMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 21.2.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2, vide which, recovery of an amount of Rs. 31,914/- imposed upon the petitioner has been effected after his retirement without issuing any charge-sheet and holding any inquiry. A further prayer has also been made for issuing directions to the respondents to refund the amount deducted from the retiral benefits along with interest. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Secretary in respondent-Corporation and retired as such on attaining the age of superannuation vide order dated 19.7.2012 w.e.f. 31.7.2012. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.6.2010 to explain as to why recovery of an amount of Rs. 19,785.20/- be not made from him. Reply to the said notice was filed by the petitioner stating therein that he is not responsible for the recovery of the said amount. Thereafter, another memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 7.6.2012 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,08,138/- and the same was also replied by him. Ultimately, respondent No. 2. passed the impugned order for recovery of an amount of Rs. 31,914/- Rs. 12129/- principle amount + Rs. 19785 as interest) from the retiral benefits due to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and the aforesaid recovery has been made after retirement. Learned counsel further contends that before passing the order of recovery, neither any regular inquiry was conducted nor any responsibility was fixed. Even the reply filed by the petitioner has not been considered. Learned counsel also submits that only on the basis of audit objection, the recovery has been effected, whereas, the petitioner was neither in-charge nor supervisor and he has not even sold the seeds on credit. He was dealing with the Court cases only and cannot be held responsible in any manner for making recovery of the amount in dispute. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no recovery can be effected without conducting any inquiry. Learned counsel has also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Satyam Yadav v. State of Haryana and another (C.W.P. No. 10161 of 2007 decided on 28.2.2008), in support of his contentions.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner was dealing with Court cases and record of the cases was not produced before the Court, which has resulted in financial loss to the Corporation. The petitioner was issued a notice to explain his position as to why recovery be not effected from him and after considering his reply, recovery was ordered to be made from him.