CHHOTE LAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, this case is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in the Government School. He has retired from service on 31st January, 2000, whereafter his retiral benefits was to be paid to him. However, on the ground that he absented from duty, by participating in the strike by the teaching and the non-teaching staff, and on the further ground that with the connivance of the then Headmaster of the concerned School, he made false entries of attendance in the Attendance Register, an order was passed by the District Education Officer for recovery of the amounts which was paid by way of salary to the petitioner for the strike period. The petitioner has challenged this order of the Respondents and prayed for a direction not only to quash the impugned order of the District Education Officer, but also for a direction upon the Respondents to refund the sum of Rs.42,042/-together with interest, which has been recovered from the payable amount of the petitioner's Gratuity.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not participate in the strike and in fact, had even given a letter of assurance that he does not desire to participate in the strike. On considering the assurance given by the petitioner, he was even deputed to work as the In-charge Headmaster of the School and accordingly, he had discharged his duties and his attendance was also marked genuinely. Subsequently, an enquiry was also conducted in respect of all such teaching and non-teaching staffs to ascertain as to who, amongst them, have participated in the strike and who did not. Being satisfied that the petitioner did not participate in the strike, salary was paid to him for the strike period. Thereafter, no issue was raised regarding the payment made to the petitioner and he had retired from service in the month of January, 2000. Subsequently, it was much after his retirement that the impugned order has been passed for recovery of the amount from his Gratuity and that too, without issuing any show cause notice nor affording any opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to why such amount should not be recovered and even without initiating any proceeding under Rule 43 B of the Pension Rules .