SBCWP No.2675/02. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2675/2002. O.P. Vashistha Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : November 24, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashok Gaur for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Gupta, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 12/4/2002 who was retired from the post of Principal Government Senior Secondary School, Dhodsar on 31/3/1999. When the petitioner was in the service, he was served with the charge-sheet on 12/10/1992 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, "Rules of 1958"). He had to approach this court by filing this writ petiton for payment of his retiral dues which were withheld by the respondents due to pendency of departmental enquiry. This court while passing the judgment dated 18/9/2000 in another writ petition, directed the respondent- disciplinary authority to conclude the enquiry within SBCWP No.2675/02. 2 a period of three months. But when the respondents did not complete the enquiry within the said time period, petitioner had to file contempt petition and thereafter the respondents vide order dated 19/11/2001 dropped the departmental enquiry against the petitioner because they found that no pecuniary loss was caused to the government. At that stage, petitioner again submitted a representation for payment of retiral dues and consequential benefits. When he was not paid the same, he again approached this court by filing this writ petition. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though all other retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner but respondents have illegally withheld the amount of Rs.34,560/- citing the audit objections of the period from April 1994 to July 2000. It was argued that petitioner was not confronted with any of the audit objections when he was still in service of the respondents. Such a deduction cannot be made from the gratuity amount of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that opportunity was not given to the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount may not be deducted. It was argued that petitioner was issued no dues certificate and accordingly his PPO & GPO were prepared. At that stage, respondents deducted the pensionary benefits. Since the petitioner retired on 31/3/1999 and almost a decade had gone by since then, respondents should be required to pay the aforesaid amount. SBCWP No.2675/02. 3 4) Shri Hemant Gupta, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that audit party of the accounts office during the audit for the period between April 1994 to March, 1999, pointed out number of objections and also for the audit period between March, 1992 to July 2000, pointed out number of financial irregularities. All this amount was required to be recovered from the petitioner. This also included the objection that petitioner was paid salary twice for the month of August, 1986. 5) On consideration of the facts aforesaid and perusal of the material on record, I find that respondents have not denied the fact that they have withheld the amount of Rs.34,560/- from the amount of gratuity. Their contention is that audit objections were raised by the office of the Accountant General for the period April 1994 to March, 1999. Some objections that are enumerated in reply to writ petition are that petitioner purchased certain books worth Rs.2654/- which were not required, petitioner purchased from the market certain materials on higher price than the prevalent market price worth Rs.2840/- and 17 books worth Rs.1095/- were outstanding against him. For the audit period from March 1992 to July 2000 that petitioner did not deposit the books worth Rs.4822, he misused the boys fund in the name of Electronic Typewriter worth Rs.3947/- and took reimbursement of the medicines worth Rs.433/- which was not reimbursable. Besides above, he was paid SBCWP No.2675/02. 4 salary twice for the month of August, 1986. It is not pointed out in reply to the writ petition as to when the objections were raised either by the audit party of internal audit or audit from Accountant General's office. If such objections were raised when the petitioner was still in service, he ought to have been confronted with such objections. If the audit was conducted after he retired, he cannot be expected to know all these pointed objections. In any case, the objections raised were of such nature, it ought to have been got remedied while petitioner was still in service. In the result, writ petition is allowed in part. Respondents are directed to verify the fact whether actually petitioner was paid double salary for the month of August, 1986 and if it is so found, they would be entitled to deduct that amount. Rest of the amount shall be paid to the petitioner with interest @6% p.a. within a period of three months upon petitioner producing copy of this judgment. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil