KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Saran i.e. the respondent no. 6 herein, by which the admitted retiral dues of the husband of the petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily adjusted against the alleged outstanding misappropriated sum of money which has never been proved/ established in any proceeding. The petitioner has further prayed to pay the admitted retiral dues of her husband and disburse the arrears of salary which has remained unpaid.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the deceased husband of the petitioner Late Kedar Nath Singh served in the office of District Board, Saran and on completion of 58 years of age, he superannuated from the post of Work Sarkar on 31.08.2006. During the course of his service, the husband of the petitioner had been directed to supervise the work under different schemes and money was also advanced to him. On 30.08.2006, a day before the retirement of the husband of the petitioner, a criminal case bearing Chapra Town PS case no. 189 of 2006 was instituted against him under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code for alleged misappropriation of government funds and subsequently, the deceased husband of the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.08.2007. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the deceased husband of the petitioner was directed to rejoin his services vide order dated 01.12.2006, in view of the judgment rendered by this Court on 15.09.2006, whereby and whereunder the retirement age of the employees was extended to 60 years from 58 years. The petitioner had rejoined his services on 06.12.2006 and had then stood superannuated on 30.08.2008 upon attaining the age of 60 years. Though the deceased husband of the petitioner had applied for retiral dues but the same were not paid and ultimately, he died on 29.04.2014. The petitioner had then approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. no. 7758 of 2017 for grant of retiral dues, however this Court by an order dated 28.07.2017, had remanded the matter back to the Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Saran for addressing the grievances of the petitioner. The petitioner had then filed a fresh representation, in pursuance whereof, the petitioner received a communication dated 03.11.2017 indicating that the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Saran at Chapra had taken a decision dated 03.11.2017, wherein it has been held that the amount recoverable from the deceased husband of the petitioner comes to a sum of Rs. 58,26,163/- whereas the amount of retiral benefits outstanding for payment comes to a meager sum of Rs. 9,56,970.96/-, hence nothing is payable to the petitioner herein but still the amount of G.P.F. amounting to a sum of Rs.1,90,639/- is being released in favour of the petitioner herein. In the said order dated 03.11.2017, it was further directed that Certificate case be filed for the purposes of recovery of the balance amount. It is the said order dated 03.11.2017, which is under challenge in the present proceedings.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no recovery can be made from the pensionary dues of an employee unless and until such a person is found guilty of misconduct or having caused pecuniary loss to the Government by his misconduct or negligence, in a departmental or a judicial proceeding, however in the present case, the guilt of the husband of the petitioner has not been established. It is submitted that from the impugned order dated 03.11.2017, it is apparent that though a departmental proceeding was initiated and charges were framed vide Prapatra 'K' vide memo dated 31.07.2007 and an Inquiry officer as also a Presenting officer were appointed, however the same remained inconclusive. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment dated 23.10.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. no. 1646 of 2000 (Ravi Kumar Verma vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board and ors.), paragraphs no. 21 and 22, whereof are reproduced hereinbelow :-