IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24772 of 2007 Between: A.Prem Babu, s/o. A. Bhupal, R/o. 6-5-189, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hyderabad Telecom District Suryalok Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 The Accounts Officer (Cash) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Office of the General Manager (West) Telecom Telephone Exchange Building, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the intimation letter issued by the 2nd respondent dated 25-8-2007 bearing No. AO (Pay) West/APB/2007-08 alleging over payment and excess drawal of increments to the tune of Rs.1,21,493/- and recovery of the same @ Rs.2,000/- per month from August, 2007 and declare the same as illegal, ultra virus violative of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and pass any order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.DILIP KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.(SC FOR B.S.N.L) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24772 of 2007 O R D E R Petitioner challenges the order dated 25.08.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent-Accounts Officer (Cash). Through the impugned proceedings, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.1,21,493/- was paid in excess, on account of wrong fixation of pay, and that recovery at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, per month, will be effected from August, 2007. Petitioner was initially appointed as Telegraphman, in the erstwhile department of Posts and Telegraphs in the year 1975. Thereafter, he earned promotion as Phone Mechanic in the year 1996. On formation of BSNL, the petitioner came to be appointed and re-designated as Telecom Mechanic, vide proceedings dated 02.02.2001. The 2nd respondent issued the impugned intimation, not only determining that a sum of Rs.1,21,493/- was paid in excess to the petitioner, on account of wrong fixation of scale, but also commencing the recovery. The petitioner alleges that he was not issued any notice, and that the 2nd respondent is not competent to issue the said proceedings. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that certain increments were allowed to the petitioner, without proper verification, and when the same was noticed, necessary steps were taken, to rectify the mistake. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are without any basis and contrary to the principles of natural justice. He contends that the 2nd respondent is not vested with the power to issue the impugned proceedings. Mr.Devanand, learned Standing Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that as soon as the petitioner made a representation, pointing out the grievance, recoveries were stopped, and the matter is being examined with reference to the representation. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is not the appointing authority for the petitioner. Even assuming that any anomaly has taken place, in the matter of fixation of pay scales, the only thing the 2nd respondent could have done was, to bring the same to the notice of the appointing authority, who in turn, could have taken steps in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent has taken upon himself, the task of fixation of pay of the petitioner, and proceeded to recover the alleged excess amount. Such a step is not only contrary to principles of natural justice, but also is without jurisdiction. Even if the appointing authority comes to the conclusion, that any amount was paid to an employee, in excess of his entitlement, further steps, either for re-fixation of salary or for recovery of the amount can be taken only after the employee is put on notice. The impugned proceedings are in flagrant violation of settled principles of law, and they are accordingly set aside. Before parting with the case, this Court is forced to observe that in a gigantic Company like BSNL, which is the successor of one of the most important departments of the Government of India, there does not appear to be any facility to communicate the orders in typed form. The 2nd respondent has chosen to communicate the letter, in handwriting. At a time when huge amounts are spent on computerization and when e-governance is the order of the day, the 2nd respondent has chosen to write the impugned letter, in handwriting. It is not known, whether he did it on account of lack of facilities or out of his own volition. Either way, it cannot be countenanced. The effort is not to belittle handwriting, but only to emphasize on the clarity of communications. The respondents shall ensure that such things do not recur in future. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------- L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 11th MARCH, 2008 PGS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO.24772 OF 2006 7 11TH MARCH, 2008