GEETA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dtd. 17/2/2012 i.e. Annexure P/7 issued under the signature of respondent no. 04 whereby and whereunder, the unavailable amount of Rs.3,01,463.63 in cash chest is directed to be adjusted from the post service entitlement of the deceased husband of the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the husband of the petitioner was suffering from cancer and have to undergo operations due to that he could not attend office. He expired during his services on 19/9/2003, before his death on 4/9/2003, the first inventory of cash chest and entries in cash book was prepared. At that time, the husband of the petitioner was not present nor any family member of the deceased employee was present there, after the death of husband of the petitioner the chest box was inquired and it was found that in chest Rs.3,01,463.63 was unavailable. The departmental proceeding was initiated on 18/1/2008 against Omkareshwar Prasad, the then Director, Vidyakant Jha, the then Additional Director cum DDO and one Vishnu Dayal Pandit, the then Assistant Director, the enquiry was not found proved against Vishnu Dayal Pandit and the enquiry was found proved against Vidyakant Jha and he was given punishment of censure and against Omkareshwar Prasad charges were found to be partly true. Meanwhile, a three-member committee was constituted for clearance of the post retiral dues of the deceased employee i.e. husband of the petitioner. The committee found that the deceased employee i.e. husband of the petitioner was not alone responsible for the missing amount from the chest in spite of that vide order dtd. 17/2/2012 i.e. Annexure P/7 direction was given for adjustment of Rs.3,01,463.63 from the post retiral dues of the deceased employee. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner i.e. wife of the deceased employee.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the first inventory was prepared on 4/9/2003 in absence of the deceased employee at that time, no notice was also given to the family members of the deceased employee and inventory was prepared. Since, the departmental enquiry was initiated against three persons and it was found that charges against two of them was found proved, the three-member committee also arrived on the conclusion that the deceased employee i.e. husband of the petitioner was not only responsible for the missing amount from the chest, in spite of that the missing amount was directed to be adjusted from the gratuity and leave encashment of the retiral dues of the petitioner. Since, amount of gratuity and amount of leave encashment also includes in pension therefore, it cannot be adjusted, reliance has been placed by the counsel in the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kaushlya Devi vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Home & Ors. passed in CWJC No. 9735 of 2021 [: 2023 (2) BLJ 112] and also reliance has been placed by the counsel in the judgment passed by the another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mostt. Punita Karn vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department & Ors. in CWJC No. 270 of 2020 [: 2023 (2) BLJ 701].