DINESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

(2.) The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the Memo No. 50 dtd. 1/3/2004, issued under the signature of respondent no.4 whereby an amount of Rs.1,07,500.00 was inflicted to be recovered from the petitioner without any rhyme or reason.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any proceeding or any show-cause notice, the aforesaid amount has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner which is against the settled principles of law as laid down in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. He further submits that the respondents were duty bound to initiate a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of Bihar Pension Rules for taking any action against the petitioner after his retirement. However, no proceeding under Sec. 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was ever initiated against the petitioner which is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.