TEKLAL MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : The present petition has been instituted mainly against the order passed by the respondent no. 6, dated 24th of October, 2008 (Annexure -1 to the memo of the petition) whereby sizable amount of Rs. 1,00,471.00 paise has been ordered to be deducted from the retirement benefits specially from gratuity and in pursuance of this order at Annexure -1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amount has been deducted from the gratuity of the present petitioner, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. No basis or calculation nor any notice of being heard has been given to the petitioner. Simply a Clerk or Head Clerk of the concerned respondents office has calculated the aforesaid figure and no details has been how this figure has been arrived at. On the contrary whatever salary was paid to the petitioner was absolutely in accordance with law, rules, regulations and policy etc. issued by the State of Jharkhand. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that had an opportunity would have been given to the petitioner, these facts would have brought to the notice of the concerned respondents and without hearing an unilaterally, arbitrarily and capricious decision has been taken by the respondents, hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside when there is breach of principles of natural justice. 2007 (4) JLJR 459 and also the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram Vs State of Haryana and others reported in 1995 Supp(1) SCC 18. Thus, unilateral decision has led this petition, otherwise, there would have been no necessity of filing of the petition at all, if this bare minimum requirement of principles of natural justice would have been observed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents who has submitted that the amount deducted is in accordance with law as there was an excess payment of the amount to the petitioner when he was in service. No illegality has been committed by the respondent in taking the amount even by now this amount has been deducted and therefore, petition may not be allowed by this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent no. 6 at Annexure -1 dated 24th of October, 2008 mainly for the facts and reasons that: -

(3.) The decision at Annexure -1 is unilateral and arbitrary. Arbitrariness and equality are sworn enemies of each other. If arbitrariness is present equality is always absent and where equality is present arbitrariness is always absent. Arbitrary decision will lead to a breach of equality i.e. Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, an impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.