IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1791 of 2006 SHEIKH ALAMGIR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 07/ 12.04.2010 Heard Mr. Raghib Ahsan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Kunal Tiwary representing the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation and its authorities and learned counsel for the State. The writ petitioner had questioned the order bearing memo no. 295 dated 1.7.2004 issued under the signature of the Managing Director of the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), whereunder an outstanding of Rs. 1,18,338/- has been shown against the petitioner and which amount has been adjusted against the leave encashment of the petitioner. Brief facts of the matter is that the petitioner superannuated from the post of Superintendent from the respondent Corporation with effect from 30.06.2004. Following his superannuation on 30.06.2004, the respondent Managing Director of the Corporation vide the impugned order bearing memo no. 295 dated 01.07.2004 directed for adjustment of the outstandings of Rs. 1,18,338/- against the leave encashment amount of the petitioner of Rs. 1,30,200/- and pay the balance of Rs. 11,862/- to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said action of the authorities came before this Court through 2 the present writ petition for setting aside the said order and for refund of the amount so withheld by the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except for the dues as set out in the letter dated 29.3.1982 (Annexure-1), 2.8.1983 (Annexure-2) and 15.3.1984 (Annexure-3), there are no other pending dues against the petitioner. He submits that soon after the refund of the amount as set out in Annexures- 1, 2 and 3, the matter stood closed. He thus submits that the outstanding as shown in Annexure-6 are without any supportive document and the recovery is illegal. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 shows the following advances against the petitioner, namely- (a) Motor Cycle advance of Rs. 1,294/-; (b) Miscellaneous advance to the tune of Rs. 21,665/-; (c) Travelling advance of Rs. 15,300/- and (d) Unapproved amount of Rs. 80,079/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the items are sans supportive documents and in absence whereof the petitioner is precluded from explaining the outstandings shown. Twice the matter was adjourned enabling learned counsel for the Corporation to seek instruction on the issue raised by the petitioner and bring on record the documents supporting the respective advance(s) shown against the petitioner but despite the adjournment, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits that he has not received any instructions in the matter. 3 In such situation, this Court proceeds in the matter on the basis of the materials available on record and the explanations set out in the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner. In relation to the vehicle loan, it is stated that the petitioner had taken a vehicle loan of Rs. 6,000/- and which has since been recovered from his salary upon deduction of Rs. 60/- per month. It is submitted that five persons including the petitioner were granted vehicle loan and whereas the amount of the other persons have been adjusted on repayment of the principal amount the petitioner has been illegally saddled with interest. It is thus submitted that the inclusion of the interest amount of Rs. 1,234/- is not admissible in view of the fact that the principal amount had already been recovered by the Corporation. In regard to the miscellaneous advance of Rs. 21,665/- placed at Annexure-B, it is contended that the said issue has been raised on the basis of a calculation made on a plain sheet which does not even bear any signature of any authority and the authenticity whereof itself is doubtful. As regarding the traveling allowance advance of Rs. 15,300/- is concerned, it is stated that the same has been raised without any supportive document and again on the basis of a calculation made on plain sheet and is placed at Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. As regards the unapproved expenditure of Rs. 80,079/- it is submitted that the same does not contain any details of the 4 heads under which the petitioner had entailed such expenditure and that despite repeated requests no notice or letter was issued to the petitioner requiring an explanation against the said advances. The contentions and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel appears to be sound for the reason that save and except a statement made in Annexure- 6, the documents relied upon by the Corporation are indeed on plain sheet of the paper, the authenticity whereof itself does not instill confidence. Another factor which goes in favour of the petitioner is that despite adjournments being granted to the Corporation to place on record of the proceedings the relevant supporting documents with respect to each of the items of outstanding shown against the petitioner, they have failed to respond on this score. It is obvious that in absence of any supportive documents accompanying any outstanding the petitioner would definitely not be in a position to explain the advances. Having regard to the circumstances aforesaid, the order as contained in Annexure-6 is set aside. The respondent Managing Director of the Corporation is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after due notice to the petitioner and after providing him with documents supporting each of the items of the outstandings shown against the petitioner and also providing him reasonable opportunity to respond to the same by 5 written and oral submissions. Needless to add that if the petitioner has been able to explain that amounts shown outstanding against him are not correct, the said amounts would be released in his favour. In case the explanation set out by the petitioner is not found admissible, the claim may be rejected by a speaking order. In either situation, the order may be passed within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)