SONKANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the main question involved is as to whether any deduction from the family pension payable to the dependents of a deceased Government servant of any amount even if the same is due against the deceased Government servant can be made? The petitioner Smt. Sjnkanwar is the widow of late Shobhag Singh. Said Shobhag Singh was confirmed Lower Division Clerk in the office of Superintendent of Police, Jaipur District, Jaipur. While he was working as such, on July 20, 1965 a report was lodged against him at the police station, Bani Park Jaipur in respect of embezzlement of Rs. 187. 50 due to double drawal of medical bill. IN fact late Shobhag Singh is said to be working as a Cashier/accountant and on May 27, 1965 P. J. Munshi, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Lines, Jaipur inspected the cash and accounts and it was found that it was short by Rs. 29,493. 93. This fact was brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police on whose instance two F. I. Rs. were lodged - one for Rs. 187-50 for double drawal of medical reimbursement bill and F. I. R. No. 76/65 under Section 409 I P. C. for mis-appropriating the amount of Rs. 29, 493 30. Before the trial in two cases could be concluded, Sobhag Singh died in S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur on December 18, 1972. On the death of Sobhag Singh both the criminal cases against him were ordered to be consigned to record. The petitioner applied for grant of family pension under the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and the then Superintendent of Police, Jaipur District, Jaipur, instead of giving a clear no dues certificate put a note in the no dues certificate that Rs. 27,074 25 are outstanding against late Sobhag Singh and they have to be adjusted from the family pension and gratuity to be sanctioned and paid to the petitioner. The Chief Pension Payment Officer (now Director of Pension Payment) issued a P. P. O. No. C. P. O. 1274 (F. P.) dated June 22, 1981. Family pension at the rate of Rs. 120/- per month was granted with subsequent usual increments, Out of the arrears of family pension for the period December 19, 1972 to May 31, 1981 a sum of Rs. 10,398. 32 was deducted and Rs. 3,525/-was adjusted from death-cum-retirement gratuity without any notice. Thus an amount of Rs. 13,923 32 was adjusted and not paid to the petitioner. It was further ordered that one third part of the family pension to be paid in future shall be continued to be deducted towards the so called dues outstanding against Sobhag Singh. The case of the petitioner is that she was not paid a single paisa in respect of pension from December 19, 1972 to May 31, 1981 and from June 1, 1981 she, is getting only two third of the family pension sanctioned by P. P. O. as mentioned above.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner further is that for the balance of the so called outstanding amount against her late husband Sobhag Singh, the Superintendent of Police has proceeded under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952. A requisition was issued under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the recovery Act') in which a sum of Rs. 14. 677. 70 was said to be outstanding against the name of late Sobhag Singh. THE Collector, Nagaur and Tehsildar, Parbatsar City are taking proceedings to recover the amount. According to the petitioner, she has never been told inspite of many approaches made to Superintendent of Police as to how the amount was calculated in the case of Sobhag Singh.

(3.) EVEN in the departmental proceeding as contemplated under Rule 170 of the Rules by virtue of its clause (b) could not have been initiated against Sobhag Singh after his death save with the permission of the Governor. Clause (b) of Rule 170 provides that such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor; shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution; and shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service. Under clause (c) of Rule 170 of the Rules no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. In view of the aforesaid provision it becomes highly doubtful that any judicial proceeding could have been initiated even against Sobhag Singh after four years of the accrual of the cause of action. Be that as it may, there is no provision in the Rules under which any amount said to be due against Sobhag Singh could have been recovered even from Sobhag Singh if he would have survived and retired without there being adjudication of the same in judicial proceeding and without a finding of fact in any departmental proceeding against grave misconduct of Sobhag Singh. In our opinion, under the Rules no recovery of any amount said to be due against Sobhag Singh as a pecuniary loss said to have been caused to the Government could be made from the pension said to have been sanctioned to the petitioner widow. We may state that as stated earlier during the life time of Sobhag Singh except the audit report about which we have said that about Rs. 23,000/- and odd were found due, there was no adjudication as aforesaid against Sobhag Singh. No recovery can be made from his widow either from family pension or otherwise without following principles of natural justice. We are of the opinion that after the death of Sobhag Singh the only remedy available to the Govt. if any, amount was due to Sobhag Singh as a result of pecuniary loss said to have been caused to the Govt. the same could have been recovered after filing a suit against his widow and after a decree would have been passed against her as legal representative of deceased Sobhag Singh. Thus, we are of the opinion that the respondents or the Chief Pension Officer (now Director, Pension) could not have mentioned in the P. P. O. (Annexure-3) that the amount of Rs. 13,923. 32 should be deducted from the arrears of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity. Thus, the deduction of the aforesaid amount is without any authority of law.