•w' ^;:^y" ..^^•-' .^^y' f.^^y xv^^ RESPONDENTS /^y-. f fr / -. .. _^ -sh e^qA":-?fn BEFORE THE. HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0. 2S43 / 2003 / K.K. Nath^ aged about 6 1 years S/o. Late Shri KaminiKumar Nafh Ex. Assistant Engineer (Electrical 8s Mechanical) Water ResourcesDepartment Government of Chhattisgarh Office offhe Executive Engineer E/M H.E.M. Division (Irrigation Department) Commissioner Compound Kada Building Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS fZ-A State of Chhattisgarh Through Principle Secretary Water Resources/Imgation Department Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Accountant General Govemment of Chhattisgarh Near Fafadih Chowk Raipur (C.G.) 'Engmeer - In- Chief Water Resources Department (Irrigation) Govt. ofChhattisgarh Civil Line Raipur (C.G.) w "^ \1fl y -/Z^F/r {^4. Executive Engmeer E/M Heavy Earfh Moving /' Machinery Division Water Resources Departtaent BUaspur (C.G.) PETmON UNDERARTICLE22^/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA sr ^ XI-HC-22 3^ ^i-tiw^, w^ww, fstdlti^ 3ii^| 4S!<*> *11*<WI sb*<|t1 SD^T^iI f?iR7sn^r stiHi<f8f?(r aiiq.'i 6«iiiOTHf?(T <t)i<i?ci<fl-t tiiidT^''fWt'<Riwi< ^srf^irsii^r 11.4.2003 coujisel pon|lent petiti^ner Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Shri Akhil Agiawal, Paae) None on behalf of resi By ttds writ petitiou un^ of India tlie petitioner has que; action of the respondents whe|i paid to the petitioner. TIie case of the appoiated as Sub-Engtaeer Goveniinent of erstwhile Statil State aad coininK into existen< the peti.tioner's service has b^ after attaining the age of su^ siiperaruiuated w.e.f 31.10.20) retii'al benefits. Retum has been filed 01)1 in which it has been laention^d 343 tools and plants to ffa^ aeaiiist liioi tiiae siace whenl Sihora, District Jabalpur (M.; Rs.2,46.473/- and inspite 41 petitioner he has not returae^t was written bv the Sub Divisl< Jabalpur on 25.4.1996, fhcji Engiaeer (E&M) Narsiaghpur| for the petitioner. Lawyer for the State. No.2. ;r Article 226/227 offhe Constitution [tioued fhe legality and propriety of the Irebv the retiial benefits has not beeu is that on 28.3.1966 he was ia the Irrigation Department of of M.P. After reorganization of fhe |:e oftlie State ofC.G. w.e.f. 1.11.2000 ten aUocated to the State of C.G aud lieraruiuation the petitioner has been p2, however, he has not been paid tlie behalfoffhe respondeut No.l, 3 & 4 fhat the petitioner has not retumed departinent which are oiitstandiug he was posted at (E& M Worxshop), .). The total value offhe above tools is various reiuaiaders issued to fhe those tools aad plaats. First letter onal. OiEcer (E&M), Light Machiaeries, reafter, on 15.7.2003 the Executive also wrote a letter for retummg the --^^-aAafeA^ XI-HC-22 3^ -^ww^, ®T?ly'l6,is|dlti^< 3ii^| i^ach ^_...^fc25^°| l.o' 11*<MI S»)t||ch sn^rw f^TWSn^T shfRifffStf 3<1^1 SMIIiOT^tT 2- tinld'ifl-l ><iHi-]T^:tec^l'<RlWI<. ^sri^irsn^r iardta satne above tools. Aa aaticipatoiy pen sanctioned to fhe petitionerw.e.: paid towards gratuity amount has been sent to respondent Np. The respondents No.l, 3 & 4 d< miade ia tihe head of Fanuly Ben) has sent the service book to (E&M HEM Division), Water RC!| of deduction. The funds regard^ Leave Encashinent could not hd of the service records, as the Departiuent, Satna, as soon as fhe department, all fhe retiral subiect to recoverv of outstaadiit. retum it has been luentioned amount of Rs.22,678/- & Rs petitioner, therebv total agamst the petitioner herein.. Retum has also been Accountant Genei'al in which it| of Rs.2,02,732/- has already| towards GPF ainoiunt. Rejoiader to the retura ^] petitioner ia which it has beer^ was traiisferred in the vear 199< fhe tlien Sub Divisional Of5cer amoulnt itled i|sion amountmg Rs.5,667/- has been f. 1.11.2002; Rs.2,30,489/- has been ^ad GPF pass book of fhe petitioner ,|2 regardiag payineut ofGPF amount. not have first entries of deductions ;fit Fund, therefore, respondent No.4 dhe ofiice of fh.e Execzitiive Engineer ipurces Department, Satna for entry jng Group Insuraiice Schenie (GIS) & ^ve been paid due to non-availabiLity has been sent to Water Resources the service book woiild be received bv lues would be paid to the petitioner dues against him. In Para-6 of fhe excess payuient and tour advance ,4,700/- are also due agaiast the of Rs. 2,73,771/- is outstaading tttat on behalf of respondent No.2- has been nientioned that an ainount been saactioned to flie petitioner ias also been filed on behalf of fhe menti.oned that when the petitioner froin Sihora to Rewa, in. his absence aam.ely Shri R.S. Selot after breaking XI-HC-22 *<l*TPfT Sh<1|th SSf r^WMif, WiS\W\6, [sfcll<Hlj< 3l!^l <4ae»i ^..w£'..^.-^bz..^ an^r^r R-ii'tisn^T ai>iit>(riiH aii^i ^•wiwflf?a' +l'i|fri'!fl.< 411c)Tlffel<fl <f«t(^l< ^sri^q'gn^r todk open fhe lock of workshop and report to fhat effect was weU higher officers of the dep^ was taken. OfEcer In-charge of tlji Engiaeer is present in Court). ah-eady been paid to fhe pe^ Encashiuent & Fam.ilv Benefit been ascertamed aad ia abovl for to receive arouiid Rs. 1,44,(| Haviug heard learaed cji fhe record. The onlv aUegation lei fhe petitioner hereui is that E&M Wqrkshop, he was nof a|t which were in his charge. informed by the respondent 19.9.1994 that he has not ac^ accoiint. Thereafter, agaia o4 retum fhe sam.e aad on 4.5. Agaia on 7.5.1996, 22.8.199t 18.2.2002, 20.3.2002, 5.4.J remiading the petitioner were| dated 26.8.2003 the Chief was uifonned that on accoutit away fhe tools aad plants in a truck also lodged with fbe poUce statiou as jrfcment by fhe petitioner, but no action jiis case Shri J.N. Gupta, Execzitive He subinits that GPF amoiint has titioner aud as far as fhe GIS, Leave Fund are concemed, same have also three heads the petitioner is entitted ^oo/-. |ounsel for fhe parties, I have perused velled by respondent No. 1, 3 & 4 against when he was posted at Sihora in the ble to account for 343 tools aad plants [n this conuection the petitioner was Executive Engineer vide letter dated •ounted for 343 tools aad plaats Part-2 25.4.1996 flie petitioner was asked to also similar letter was sent to 1-1im. i, 28.11,2001, 14.12.2001, 30.1.2002, i002 aad 15.7.2003 similar letters sent aad ultim.atelv vide Annexure R-4 ingiaeer, Mahaaadi Pariyoaia, Raipur of non-retum of said 343 tools and 11996 XI-HC-22 3^ -^WMtf, wS\WW, ts|<-llti^< 3TR?T *11HMI S Trai ^..'^.f.A^.lJ.O.; sn^r^ f^lwan^T StltlRid%s ?;rafei^T TOirif ff IWt ^STRK ^;3rf^T3n^T plaats by fhe petitioner agaiast the petitioner. The case of fhe petitioi said post vide order dated 13. caaceUed vide order dated store was locked, On 21,11. Shri R.S. Selot directed aU tl has been relieved froin diitiei enter iu.to the office and fhe v. herein wrote a letter to S.H thereia fhat SDO, Sihora aff\ about 8.00 a.in. took a^ No.MP24/4440. Sumlai- rei Supenntendent of Police, Jab| Station Sfliora reported fhe 13.5.1997 tiiatK.K. Nath i.e.l fhe nionth of July, 92 to charge to the fhen SDO, tfaej lock of store took awav fhe appears to be of departoaienlj tfae Executive Engiaeer, Bh[ euquuy was iastituted by fh^ said 343 tools and plants. It is adinitted positionj ttien SDO Shri R.S. Selotwht froni the workshop on 22.1^. herejn aa amount of Rs.2,46,473/- is due ler is that he was transferred from. the '. 1990, however, his transfer order was .[2.11.1990 and dunng this period the 11990 vide Aimexure J-2 tfae tlien S.D.O. ie eraployees that the petitioner herein therefore, he shoidd not be aUowed to [•orkshop. On 22.11.1990 fhe petitiQner ,0., PoUce Station Sihora, luentioiunj er breaking Uie lock on 22.11.1990 at ?ay tools aad plants ta a tnick liort was sent bv Tlim on 3.1.1994 to ypur. The Station House Officer, Police n|tatter to S.P., Jabalpur vide lefter dated fhe petitioner hereia was traiisfcmed.rn R^wa, siace he has not handed over.th® sfore, fhe theu SDO after breafciBtg 'Ehe fcools and. plants, fherefore, fbiis featter al enqiliry. Thc petitioner also l-sported opal about tlie said iacident, but no departinent about the accouiltability of hil' that no hiventory was prepared by the le taking away tiie said tools and plants 1990 Qiat how inauy tools aad plants XI-HC-22 3 T '^l-Mld'q, ®Tf)«'16,is|diyij< 3T(^rq^T . ^•^l^l *nWfTSCTTW "•"""•"•"•••••g^ Rl'b^ sn^rw f^TWsn^r shfWHf?(T ^irafa^r iTRrif ff fec^t'rfSRerc ^isrf^iran^T were found in the workshop took awav in the truck. petitioner hereia about fhe Selot and fhereafter, takaij workshop, therefore, the sen| enquiry in order to find out lyiag in fhe workshop and ho] order to ascertain fhe lia{ uaibrtuiiately no such enqi^ii^' senior officers aad without d fastened on fhe petitioner hei he has been held responsi1| recoveiy ofRs.2,46,473/- has| Now fhe question reiuaf No.l, 3 & 4 are entitled t|c petitioner in view of Rule Rules, 1976 which envisages |and how much tools & plaats he had ^pecific aUegation was leveUed by fhe ireaking of lock by the then SDO R.S. away fhe tools aad plants froiu the ior ofEcers ought to have iastituted SD. |that how many tools and plants were ^v inany were taken by the then SDO in liiUty of fhe petitioner herein. But was instituted or directed bv the |onducting enquiry a Uability has beeu ;ui about fhe 343 tools and plants and >le for fhose tools and plants and a been fastened ou him. i|ihs that as to whether the respondents lo recover the said ainount froin fhe of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Ithat: ds "65. Recovery and adj (1) It shaU be the duty of to clear aU Govemiuei retirement. (2) Where a retuiag Gov^ Goveminent dues and sit' a. an equivalent froin him; or b. out of fhe gr^i aoniuiee or legs fhat recoverablel Goveminent duds Jastmeat of Governmeat dMes.- every retiring Goveminent servant it dues before the date of his snunent servaat does not clear the :h dues are ascertainable.- 4ash deposit niay be taken ^tuity payable to hitn, his heir, an amiount equal to on account of ascertauiable s shatl be deducted. XI-HC-22 3^ -^l-ilWV, Vn^WIG, KiviWy. 11*1MTSCTrai 3ll^l <4^cft ^-?^?^17;'n;?J.oa. TTj; 200 sn^r^ir f^iraian^r Sb1 Hl^(T a<i^i ^wiwfffN tii<if<-]<fl-f iitiiiTfftec^<Riwi< ^isrf^R'sn^r respondelats As inentioned above, fastened the Uability on fhe p< was conducted bv fhe the petitioner. As it is adinitt^ breakiag fhe lock ofworkshop, hereiii, took away certain. tool prepaied as to how luany tools aad how raay tools aad plaats conducting an enquiry no liabitj Now fhe question reinau^ respondents' No. 1, 3 & 4 are e| to.fasten.the Uability on fhe ofsub-rale (2) ofRule 9 ofthe '(b) ihe the Govemmeni servant his reiiremeni or during h^ (i) shaV not Uf SancfionoftH fii) shall not be took place m^ instituiio}T, It is adinitted position plants pertams to the year 31.10.2002, fherefore, ia viCTv| sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Rules| entifled to iastitute an tDie pe^itiones departmental prcfpeedings respoudents are not entifled fo jtitioner unless axid until aa enquiry ia order to find out the liabUitv of ^d position fhat fhe then SDO after |which was ia chai^e of the petitioner and plaiits and no uiventor)7 was ^iid plants were lyiag tn the workshop |he had took away, tiierefore, withoiit lltv" can be fastened on tfae petitioner. l^s as to whether at fhis uioinent fhe ^itifled to conduct aa enquuy ia order ;^itioner. In this connection Clause (b) Rules of 1976 envisages that: o^peedings, if not insiituied while ^yas in servioe whether before re-employment:- insiituted save with the Govemor; in respect of any event whidl »-ethanfour years before such that inatter regardnig 343 tools aad 1^90 aad fhe petitioner had retired on of second paragraph of Clause (b) of of 1976 now fhe respondents arc not enqi^in7 to fix fhe responsibility of fhe XI-HC-22 3^T ^WM^, W^S\W\6, fsfc(ltiy< <411CTI Shtflct) 311^1 ^aeh ^-<'.r> ^^il l.a ** sn^r^r I^THTSII^T StitTR) N;(Tf??T aii^l gwiwfff?cr !»)i<iF<-i<n-i ^ii<iT¥tei^l'<Ri+<;i< ^srf^q'Stl^T Casfes petitioner about 343 tools and a departiaental proceedings event which took place inore Today, we are ia fhe year 20C year 1990, so after lapse of| mstituted on accoiint of fhis fortified by the judgiaent of thi] State of U.P. and another VI [1996) 9 Supreme Court U.P, are param.ateria with thej which ftie Hon'ble Apex Courtj indicate . that if the officer embezsdeineni etc. due to mis^ duty, then proceedings shoii^ against the officer as expediti^ misconduct etc. which may tor| or embezzlement, i.e., the should nof have taken place n) insiituiion of proceedings. proceedings nwst be iiistituted of which the eveni of miscondi^ fhis case the officer had retired\ initiafed on 21.4.1991. caused pecuniary loss to the fhe date ofhis retiremeni. disabled Uselfby their deliber^f shbU fUau cdiKse Obvic^jsly, Urider [plaats, as this provision requires Uiat not be iastituted in respect of any four vears before such iastitution. |5, whereas the inatter relates to fhe 15 years no such enquir)7 caa be legal bar and io. fhis respect I ani ^ Hon'ble Apex Court ia the inatter of |s. Shri Krishna Pandey reported in 395, The pension niles of State of C.G. Pension Rules of 1976 aad m has held that "regulation also would \azised pecuraar-y loss or coinmitfed \»nduct or negUgence or dereliction iif \i afeo be instituied after retirement lpiisly as possible. But the events of b resulted in the loss to the Govemment for ihe institution of proceedings, [ore thanfour years before the dccte of &z other ttiords, the departm.enfa] before lapse offour yearsjr'oTn the 3ate ict etc had taken place. Adfnittedly: in on 31.3.1987 and tlie proceedings were usly, ihe even of embezzlemenl which fate foofc place prior to four years from ihese cdrcwnstances, the Staie had 'te omisswns to take appropriafe action f\ -\^ •>i rs -\ :,yB> XI-HC-22 ^s. ^ •I'-s 1 3^ '<<W|<Y1<<, ®Tf1^'16,pldlti^i 3n^?r *ll*<MTSh*iT^ ^^?...^-.>.^^3. sn^rqn- f^:TR)3Tl^T Sh*<i»hfff?tT ^ 3shaii/- aii^ig+diwflfer ttte Riilds Ht againsi the respondent and cj provisions ofRegukction 351-/^ Therefore, hi view of provisions ofRule 9 ofthe are not entitled to deduct the not conducted aay enqiuiy irji shoulders of the petitioner excess payiaent of Rs. 22,698] concemed, respondents No. 1,| froin fhe petitioner imless fhe petitioner herein. In. fhe result, fhe petilji' respondents are directed to rel^ after doing the needful with re^ and tour advance as mentionecl Certified as per rules. hdreia <»ii<iFci<f)'fircff ^•fei^'tRiui<. ^3if^R'-3:n^T jffowed the officer to escape from. ihe ofthe Regulations. above setfled position of law and of 1976, the respondents No. 1, 3 & 4 ^mount of Rs.2,46,473/- as they have order to fasten the liability on the As far as the ofher aiaoiint of )f- & tour advance of Rs.4,700/- are 13 & 4 are entitled to recover the same [same is satisfactorily explamed by fhe jion of the petitioner is aUowed and ^ase aU i^tu'al benefits to fhe petitioner ipect to the amount of excess payiaent above. — —— sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ((fti;^^) o !\ 3"