HARENDRA PARASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. U.P. Singh, learned AC to SC-4 for the State and Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, learned counsel for the Accountant General.

(2.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of recovery of gratuity amounting to Rs.52,799.00and Rs.73,044.00having been recovered from other retiral benefits unilaterally allegedly on the basis of revised letter issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health, Mechanical Division, Muzaffarpur vide Letter No. 523 dtd. 19/7/2018 (Annexure- 5/B) and subsequently by the PPO No. 201411031017 dtd. 30/8/2018 (Annexure-2) issued by the Accountant General.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order contained in Annexure-5/B has been brought for the first time by the Accountant General being part of the counter affidavit and no communication was made to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer respondent no.4 before taking the penal action of recovery against the petitioner. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that both the respondent nos.4 and 5 have acted unilaterally and have penalized the petitioner by recovering total amount of Rs.3,00,282.00. Learned counsel submits that law is well settled that no recovery can be made from Class-III and Class-IV employee. Petitioner had retired from the post of pump operator on 31/10/2012 and the recovery has been made behind his back in the year 2019 by the Bank authorities. The action of the respondent no.4 and the Accountant General is not sustainable in the eye of law. The petitioner must have been afforded with the opportunity of hearing to defend his case. The same has not been done in the present case.