HEMANT KUMAR INDWAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner retired as Panchayat Sevak on 31" January, 2000 from the services of the respondents and the petitioner was not paid any retirement benefits and, therefore, on earlier occasion also a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3208 of 2003 was instituted, which was disposed of vide order dated 10th July, 2003 which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of the petition, whereby, a direction was given to the respondents to calculate the legally payable amount and if any amount is to be recovered, an inquiry may be conducted and such amount may be adjusted and rest of the admitted retiral benefits may be paid to the petitioner.

(2.) Part of the said order reads as under:

(3.) It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the aforesaid order was passed by this Court on 10th July, 2003, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner unilaterally and arbitrarily, a decision has been taken by the respondents to deduct sizable amount to the tune of Rs. 1,00.278/- out of which Rs. 2,000/ was already deducted from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. Now, the legally payable amount is found out at Rs. 98.278/-. For arriving out at this decision, no show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. On the contrary, had an opportunity been given to the petitioner and had it been pointed, out that the amount received by the petitioner at a relevant time i.e. in the year 1986-87 and 1987-88 and in the respective years, there would have been proper utilization of the said amount. Neither the measurement book, upon which the reliance has been heavily placed, has been supplied to the petitioner. The documents, upon which the reliance has been placed by the respondents while passing the impugned order at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition, have never been supplied to the petitioner. Some private inquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer and that was also unilateral inquiry and the report is relied upon while passing the impugned order at Annexure-2. Even this inquiry report of the Block Development Officer was also not supplied to the petitioner. Several documents have been relied upon while passing the impugned order at Annexure-2, but, not a single copy of the document was supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order at Annexure-2 may be quashed and set aside.