RAM DHANI SINGH, S/O LATE RAMDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rupak Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Bihar State Housing Board along with Mr. Ram Kishore Singh. The State is represented by the State counsel.

(2.) The petitioner while praying for an appropriate direction to the respondents to pay his post retiral benefits has also questioned the order bearing Memo No. 1331 dated 04.3.2008 of the Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Housing Board') whereby a recovery effected from his post retiral benefits to the tune of Rs. 37,531.00, has been approved.

(3.) The charge against the petitioner is discussed in the enquiry report, a copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-4 and charges the petitioner who held the post of a Junior Engineer with the Housing Board of causing loss to the 'Housing Board' to the tune of Rs. 19,929.00 and Rs. 17602.00, the total amount coming to Rs. 37,531.00 by making excess payment to the Contractor Hriday Narayan Singh in the matter of construction of 22 houses in village Jhangri Bigha and to Contractor Ashok Kumar Singh in respect of construction of 18 houses at Telbhadro in the District of Nawada. The Enquiry Officer after holding an enquiry submitted his report and in which he has mentioned that in absence of any evidence to support the charge the petitioner can be exonerated therefrom by giving the benefit of doubt. Vide Annexure-9 a show cause was issued to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the enquiry report dated 02.5.1991 vide Memo No. 6642 dated 01.9.1999 of the Secretary of the Housing Board requiring a reply from the petitioner on the enquiry report. The show cause notice so issued, contains no notes of disagreement. The petitioner filed an exhaustive reply vide Annexure-10 on 22nd Sept., 1999 before the Secretary and a similar reply was also filed before the Managing Director, a copy of which is present at Annexure-11. No order was passed in the proceedings and in the meanwhile the petitioner superannuated on 31.7.2007 i.e. more than 7 years after the service of second show cause on 01.9.1999 and filing of reply. It is at the stage of payment of post retiral benefits to the petitioner that the respondents awakened from their slumber and while sanctioning payment of 288 days of unutilized leave vide Memo No. 212 dated 08.5.2008 that instructions were issued for recovery of Rs. 37,531.00 stated to be the alleged loss quantified in the charge memo discussed in the enquiry report present at Annexure-4. A copy of such order is present at Annexure-15. The order was acted upon and recovery was effected as manifest from the calculation details present at Annexure-16. It is after action has been taken against the petitioner that a show cause was issued on 04.3.2009 vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit as to why the amount be not recovered from his retiral benefits. The petitioner again submitted his show cause reply and with reference to a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors O.S.F.G. & ors. AIR 1999 SC 1841 , it was submitted that the proceedings so initiated has lapsed on the retirement of the petitioner on 31.7.2007 and cannot be continued thereafter. It is thereafter that the impugned order has been passed on 04.3.2008 impugned at Annexure-1 and feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.