MD. ABUL QASIM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing part of order dtd. 30/5/2020 (Annexure-6), passed by respondent No. 3, the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, whereby, two increment of salary of the petitioner was ordered to be withheld retrospectively from 2008 and it was decided to adjust difference amount consequent thereto from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondent to pay all consequential benefits as per fixation of his pension.

(3.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on 10/2/1981 in primary School Manjhne Gawan. On 24/8/2006, when a surprise inspection was conducted by respondent No. 3, the petitioner was on leave but the respondent under misconception of facts, passed an order of suspension vide its order dtd. 6/9/2006 considering the petitioner on unauthorized leave. Thereafter, an enquiry was set-up against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the Enquiry, submitted his report on 3/1/2008, finding the petitioner innocent and the allegation was found to be incorrect. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the order of suspension passed against the petitioner was revoked but while doing so, two increments of salary had been withheld by the respondent No. 3 vide its order dtd. 19/6/2008. Thereafter, on the representation of the petitioner, the respondent vide its order dtd. 30/12/2013, granted the benefits of the two increments which has been withheld by the respondents vide order dtd. 19/6/2008. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired on 31/12/2019. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after his retirement, the respondents vide its order dtd. 30/5/2020, arbitrarily and illegally passed the order of recovery and recovered an amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.