IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6935 of 2008 RABINDRA MISHRA SON OF LATE KARI MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – KHANGARPURA, POLICE STATION – MARAUNA, DISTRICT – SUPAUL. Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 2. THE DY. PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, BARAUNI THERMAL POWER STATION, BEGUSARAI. 4. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (ADMINISTRATION) BARAUNI THERMAL POWER STATION (FUEL DIVISION), BEGUSARAI. 5. JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BIDYUT BHAWAN, BORING ROAD PATNA. ----------- 06. 15.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the respondent – Board. Petitioner who retired on 31st of August 1998, from the post of Assistant Store Keeper while working in the office of Barauni Thermal Power Station, Barauni, sought for quashing the recovery of Rs. 50275/- from the gratuity on account of non- passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination vide Memo No. 462, Patna dated 18.04.2006 as contained in Annexure-3. The petitioner is also aggrieved on account of the notice dated 08.05.2001 vide Annexure-1 whereby a sum of Rs. 33464/- was sought to be recovered on account of alleged discrepancy due to disappearance of 178 Gas Cylinders from the store where the petitioner was posted. It is submitted that petitioner filed his reply to the notice 2 contained in Annexure-1 with respect to the alleged discrepancy in the Gas Cylinders. The matter remains pending and no final order could be passed save and except during the pendency of the writ application an order contained in memo No. Pen/309/09/1286 dated 17.12.2009 whereby direction was issued to recover a sum of Rs. 79,000/- and odd on account of discrepancy in the store. It is submitted that without considering the reply and in absence of any order and direction to recover a sum of Rs. 79,000/- and odd cannot be justified in law. More so, it is submitted that initially while the show cause notice was issued, the total loss on account of the alleged disappearance of Gas Cylinders was claimed to be Rs. 33, 434/- only, as mentioned in the notice vide Annexure-1. As regards the recovery of Rs. 50275/- from the sanctioned amount of the gratuity due to alleged excess pay drawn by the petitioner due to non- passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination, it is submitted that no amount can be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner, especially in view of the fact that while making the alleged excess payment petitioner did not play any fraud or misrepresented the authorities for making such payment and in absence of such the action of the respondent – Board in directing for recovery of the said amount is equally bad in law 3 and is not permissible in law, therefore, the amount deducted from the gratuity amount deserves to be refunded back. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, submits with regard to the damage sustained by the Board on account of disappearance of the Gas Cylinders that in reply to the show cause vide Annexure- 1, the petitioner did not file any documents in his defense despite opportunities. Therefore, the direction to recover the amount of Rs. 79000/- and odd, which was initially assessed to the tune of Rs. 33, 464/-, cannot be faulted. However, learned counsel for the Board is not in a position to submit that any reasoned order has been passed with regard to recovery of the amount either on account of excess salary paid to the petitioner or on account of alleged damage caused to the Board due to the disappearance of the Gas cylinders. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, in the opinion of the Court, it would be just and expedient in the interest of justice that a separate reasoned orders be passed with regard to the amount which has been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner against both the amounts as contained in Annexures-2 and 3 series as 4 also the Annexure – C. Let a final and reasoned order be passed by respondent no. 5 in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. In case, matter is decided in favour of the petitioner, the amount recovered from the gratuity as contained in Memo 1286 dated 17.12. 2008 (Annexure- G), be refunded back to the petitioner with statutory interest within a period of six weeks thereafter. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)