JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. BINOD BIHARI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23.3:2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5303/2004, by which the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order under which the respondent Jharkhand State Electricity Board sought to recover an amount of Rs. 1,01,677/ - from the petitioner's (respondent herein) retiral benefit was quashed and set aside. This order was passed relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2008(1) JCR 5 (Sita Ram & Ors. V/s. Radhey Shyam), wherein it has been held that recovery of any amount from an employee after his superannuation would not be permissible in absence of any proof of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee.

(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the petitioner/respondent herein was guilty of misrepresentation as he was posted in the Accounts Section and was drawing the scale of pay to which he was not entitled to and that apart he also received increments on the said scale of pay which was not permissible. However, it is an admitted position that the appellant -Board had not sought any explanation from the respondent, nor issued any show cause notice to him, while he was in service indicating that he had drawn increments to which he was entitled to. It is only when the petitioner/respondent retired from service, the appellant passed an order for recovery of an amount alleging that he had misrepresented and therefore, it was submitted that as the respondent was guilty of misrepresentation because he had drawn increments on the scale of pay to which he was not entitled to, the order of recovery for a sum of Rs. 1,01,677/ - was perfectly justified.

(3.) THE appellant Board having not proved the charge of misrepresentation against the respondent, was not justified in issuing order of recovery. Therefore, we refuse to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the order of recovery has been quashed and set aside. The appeal, under the circumstance, is dismissed at the admission stage itself.