MUNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a retired employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board. He has filed this writ petition challenging office order No. 3383, dated 10.7.2001 (Annexure-4). By that order the Board held and found that the petitioner, during his service tenure, was responsible for causing loss amounting to Rs. 1,80,026.25 and took the decision, in purported exercise of power under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, to recover the amount of loss suffered by the Board from the gratuity and pension payable to him. Following the Board's decision the Finance Controller by communication dated 21.8.2001 (Annexure-4/A) informed the Electrical Executive Engineer, Jehanabad that Rs. 53,985/-sanctioned as gratuity to the petitioner was fully adjusted against the amount recoverable from him and the balance of the Board's dues should be recovered by deducting half of his pension on a monthly basis.

(2.) The facts of the case are simple and brief. The petitioner retired from service as Assistant Store Keeper on 28.2.1995. When he was not paid his retiral dues even after more than a year of his retirement he came to this Court in CWJC No. 11668 of 1996. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 17,11.1997 in terms of the general directions given by this Court in Rukmani Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors., 1996 (2) PLJR 348. In the light of the Court's order he filed a representation before the authorities in the board but that did not seem to have any effect. He then filed a contempt petition being MJC No. 556 of 2000.

(3.) At this stage, the petitioner was given a notice vide office order No. 476, dated 23.1.2001 (Annexure-2) to show cause why a sum of Rs. 1,80,026.25 may not be recovered from his retiral dues under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules'. In notice it was stated that in course of physical verification of stock held during the periods 19.8.1975 to 24.10.1975, 1.12.1983 to, 7.12.1983, 9.2.1987 to 10.3.1987, 9.6.1988 to 8.7.1988 and 16.7.1993 to. 17.8.1993 certain store discrepancies were found which the petitioner failed to regularise despite repeated directions during his service tenure, as a result of which store materials valued atleast at Rs. 1,62,632/- remained unadjusted. The value of the unadjusted store materials was recoverable from him under Rule 2.32 and 7-144 of the Financial and Accounts Code. Apart from the loss resulting from the store discrepancies there were other dues against the petitioner. These were (i) Rs. 8,707.00 as misc. advances, (ii) Rs. 150/- as travelling advance and (iii) Rs. 8,537.25 as energy charges. Thus, according to the notice, a total sum of Rs. 1,80,026.25 was recoverable from his gratuity, pension and other retiral dues and in that regard he was required to show cause within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. The petitioner gave his reply on 15.2.2001 in which he admitted his liability only in regard to the energy charges. He strongly denied any liability arising from the store discrepancies and stated that he had sent a number of letters (giving their numbers and dates) to the concerned authorities in connection with the regularisation of store discrepancies. He further stated in his reply that on retirement he had, handed over the charge of the store to his successor on 17.10.1995 and he was also given a 'No Dues Certificate' on 4.9.1997 by the Assistant Electrical Engineer (Stores), copy at Annexure-3. He also questioned the action of the Board in initiating a proceeding against him on an unfounded charges after more than five years of his retirement from service. He also denied any other dues of misc. advances or travelling advance.