IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2998 of 2010 VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE RAM PRASAD LAL R/O 102, SARA APARTMENT,KANULAL ROAD,P.S.JAKANPUR,MITHAPUR,PATNA Versus 1. THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER,UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. CHANKYA TOWER, 3RD FLOOR,BIRCHAND PATEL PATH,PATNA 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. LAXMI APARTMENT ,2ND FLOOR, FRAZER ROAD,PATNA 3. UNITED INSURANCE INDIA LTD. For the Petitioner : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, Advocate. For the U.I.I.Co. : Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, Advocate. ----------- 03. 12.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for United India Insurance Company Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the Company). 2. Petitioner is serving the Company as Development Officer, divisional office-I, Patna. He is aggrieved by the instruction of the Regional Manager directing the divisional office to recover a sum of Rs.1,00,765/- from him as also to adjust the excess deducted PF of Rs.6467/- and petitioner be paid salary on the basic pay of Rs.15,730/- from August, 2009 up to March, 2010 when his performance shall be again reviewed on 1.4.2010. Such recovery has been ordered on the basis of the internal audit which reported that petitioner could not achieve the target assigned for procuring business. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that recovery may be based on the report of the internal auditors but before proceeding to make recovery on the basis of the report of the internal auditors, the competent authority ought to have served the show cause notice on the basis of the findings recorded by the audit team so as to enable the petitioner to satisfy the competent authority that he has - 2 - achieved the target assigned to him and the recovery ordered from him is not in tune with the provisions contained in Clause-11 of the scheme notified by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India under notification dated 29.4.1976, the recovery is being made from the salary of the petitioner with effect from November, 2009 till date he has not been served with any show cause notice giving him opportunity to explain that he had achieved the target and the findings of the internal audit team is not correct. 4. Counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the prayer. He submitted that true it is that till date petitioner has not been served with the show cause notice to explain that he has achieved the target but as the review exercise is to take place on 1.4.2010 and if it transpires during the review exercise that petitioner has achieved the target assigned to him, his pay and allowance which is now reduced shall be restored in terms of the provisions contained in Clause-11A of the scheme. Perusal of Clause-11A of the scheme indicates that restoration of basic pay after the review exercise is over shall take place with prospective effect. In the circumstances, in my opinion, before proceeding to make recovery it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to have given opportunity to the petitioner to explain whether he has achieved the target and the report of the audit team is not correct. 5. Accordingly, I direct that while undertaking review of the performance of the petitioner on 1.4.2010 the competent authority shall also consider whether he had achieved the target assigned to him - 3 - for the performance years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 and if petitioner is able to satisfy the competent authority that he had achieved the target assigned to him for the aforesaid years, the amount recovered from him from November, 2009 be refunded to the petitioner, failing which the competent authority shall pass reasoned order as to what was the target assigned to him and what business did he procure so that it may be evident to the petitioner as to why recovery has been ordered. The order on the review exercise be passed as early as possible, in any case before 1.5.2010. 6. This writ application is accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)