IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6611 of 2010 ARJUN BIND S/O LATE RAMU BIND R/O VILL MANSOOR NAGAR, CHHOTI PAHARI, SOHSARAI BIHARSHARIF, P.S.SOHSARAI, DISTT-NALANDA Versus 1. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER RETAIL MARKETING DIVISION S.P.VERMA ROAD, PATNA, P.S.KOTWALI, DISTT-PATNA 2. ZONAL MANAGER NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7 JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU ROAD, CALCUTTA ----------- 04. 23.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the National Textile Corporation(hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Petitioner served as Salesman in one of the sale depots of the Corporation at Biharsharif. There was a theft in the sale depot and the theft was reported to the police on 16.6.1987 as would appear from the first Information Report, Annexure-2. Petitioner superannuated under voluntary retirement scheme with effect from 15.8.2004. His retiral dues was finalized on 7.12.2004 when a sum of Rs.71,100=78/- was recovered from his terminal dues, as is evident from recovery memo dated 7.12.2004, Annexure-3. Petitioner assailed the recovery of Rs.71,100=78/- by filing C.W.J.C. No.12486 of 2005. The writ application was filed as retirement benefit matter which the Hon’ble Judge dismissed holding that it is not a case for payment of retiral dues. The said writ case of the petitioner was not decided on merit. 2 3. By filing the present writ application prayer is made to quash the recovery of Rs.71,100=78/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner on the ground that without initiating any proceeding for such recovery the amount could not have been withheld. 4. Counsel for the Corporation states that for similar relief petitioner has filed representation dated 15.2.2005, Annexure-4 which is still pending. This Court should direct the Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.2.2005 and if the amount is found admissible the same my be paid to the petitioner. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the corporation, I am of the view that before proceeding to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.2.2005, Annexure-4 the Corporation authorities should consider whether at this belated stage Corporation can initiate a proceeding for recovery of the amount against the petitioner. Recovery of the amount from an employee according to this Court is punishment and before imposing punishment the employee is required to be proceeded with. Occurrence of theft having taken place in the year 1987, petitioner having superannuated in 2004, question which is to be resolved by the authorities is as to whether at this belated stage they can initiate any proceeding for recovery 3 against the petitioner. Such question has to be resolved by considering the provisions of the Service Regulation. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ application directing the competent authority of the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Service regulation and if there is any provision empowering them to initiate departmental proceeding after 13 years of the occurrence then they may initiate proceeding to recover the amount, failing which they must refund the amount. In this connection, the authorities will be well advised to look into the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Bani Singh and Another reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1308. After making payment of amount, the authorities are not prohibited from taking any legal proceeding to recover the same in accordance with law. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)