LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.968 OF 2004 ---------- Against the judgment dated 17.8.2004, passed in C.W.J.C. No.6190 of 2000 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. -------------- Smt. Bachchi Devi, Wife of late Banaras Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Kajichak, P.S. Sarmera, District-Nalanda ------ Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. State of Bihar through Home Secretary (Prison) Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 2. Director General of Police, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., Crime Branch and Railway, Patna. 4. Director, P.F., Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Pant Bhawan, Patna. 5. Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. ---- Respondents-Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, Sr.Advocate. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate, Mr.. Kritya Nand Jha, Advocate & Mr. Shambhu Saran Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P. No.II. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA S.K.Katriar,J. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.6190 of 2000, and is aggrieved by the order dated 17.8.2004, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the order of the State Government directing recovery of a sum of Rs.3,55,022/- from the pensionery benefits admissible to the petitioner has been up-held. 2 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. Banarash Prasad Singh, the petitioner’s late husband, was in the services of the Bihar Government and suddenly died on 7.3.1998, while he was posted as Section Officer in the Accounts Section of D.G. & I.G. (P), Bihar. At the time of his death, he was in-charge of the cash chest in the accounts section. The petitioner (appellant herein) was not paid the post- retirement benefits admissible to the late employee, and payable to the petitioner in the capacity of his widow, nor family pension admissible to her, were paid leading to C.W.J.C. No. 6190 of 2000. The respondent authorities stated in the writ proceedings that, after the death of the employee, his chest was broken open and a fairly big amount was found missing. This was followed by the audit which quantified a sum of Rs.3,55,022/-, recoverable from the late employee and now to be recovered from his widow. Learned Single Judge accepted the version of the State Government and permitted recovery of Rs.3,55,022/- from the amounts payable to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 7.5% to be calculated in the manner indicated in the judgment. 3. While expressing his grievance with respect to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an illiterate lady 3 and it is not possible for her to account for the alleged losses in the department’s cash chest. He submits that law is well settled by decisions of this Court that in such circumstances, the widow should not be made liable for such recovery because she is not in a position to account for the same. He relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Vrs.Shri Shyam Kishore Pandey, 2008(1) P.L.J.R. 45. He has also relied on the following judgments rendered by the learned Single Judges of this Court: (i) Radha Jha Vrs. The State of Bihar, 2003(1) P.L.J.R. 679 (ii) Smt. Indu Devi Vs. The State of Bihar 2004(1) P.L.J.R. 162 (iii) Most Lalpari Devi Vs. The Rajendra Agricultural University, 2004(1) P.L.J.R. 691. 4. Learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned action. He submits that it is not a case where the action of late employee had caused losses to the State Government so as to attract the provisions of Bihar Pension Rules. He further submits that it is a case of simple accounting, particularly with regard to the cash in possession of the late employee and any state action for recovery is not a punitive action. In so far as the difficulty expressed on behalf of the petitioner regarding her inability to explain the losses, the task has been done by an authentic audit report of the State Government. He relies 4 on the judgment of this Court in Chandri Devi Vs. The State of Bihar, 1999(2) P.L.J.R.372. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us on a perusal of the materials on record that the late employee suddenly died on 7.3.1998. He was then in possession of the cash chest of the accounts section which had to be broken open in the presence of witnesses which was subjected to an indent audit. The relevant report relied on by the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereinbelow: “A summary of the audit report is re-produced below: A. Total outstanding balance of six cash books for which late Banaras Pd. Singh was found accountable as per audit report B. Less-amount in cash chest under custody of late Banaras Pd. Singh C.Amount recouped/drawn from treasury by the time of audit (i)Recouped from different persons in cash: (ii)Amount drawn from Treasury against vouchers, bills paid by late Banaras Pd. Singh: D. Pending by the time of audit. (i) For recovery in cash from different person (ii) For drawal from Treasury (-) 5,40,062.05 4,98,702.85 10,38,764.90 5,92,857.15 5,49,455.62 11,42,312.77(- Rs.34,21,876.70 Rs.8,85,777-75 25,36,098.95 10,38,764.90 14,97,334.05 11,42,312.77 5 Rest amount adjusted against Late B.P. Singh’s dues(leave Salary & Prov.gratuity bill) Rounded to: 3,55,021.28 3,55,022.00 (Rupees three lakh, fifty five thousand twenty two) only.” It is thus evident on a bare perusal of the audit report that late employee had to account for Rs.3,55,022. The authenticity of the audit report is beyond doubt. 6. The judgments of the learned Single Judge relied on by learned counsel for the appellant have been discussed at length by the learned writ court and have been found to be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case with which we entirely agree. The basic question of distinction between those cases on the one hand, and the present case on the other, is that the late employee was in possession of the cash chest of the department, which has been broken open in presence of the witnesses as per the prescribed procedure and was subjected to indent audit. The audit has found to the aforesaid effect. In such a situation, the appellant’s assistance is not needed. The audit report is based on the basis of the materials which were found in the chest and other registers and files maintained by the department in routine course of business. The judgment cited by the 6 learned Single Judge clearly stand on different footing. That part was discussed by the learned Single Judge whereby he has relied on paragraph nos. 4 and 6 of the judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Chandri Devi (supra). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we entirely agree with the order of the learned Single Judge, and do not wish to interfere with the impugned action of the respondents. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. B.P. Verma, J. I agree. High Court Patna, Dated 9th September, 2010 Vinay/ N.A.F.R. ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)