W.P.(C) No.7564/2009 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date Of Decision: 21st December, 2009 + W.P.(C) No.7564/2009 PROMILA DAGAR .....Petitioner Through : Mrs.Rekha Palli, Advocate with Ms.Punam Singh and Ms.Amrita Prakash, Advocates versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Gaurav Khanna, Advocate for Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has challenged orders dated 19.11.2004, 24.4.2006, 19.9.2008 and 16.12.2008. 2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner presses the writ petition only with respect to the last three orders i.e. the orders dated 24.4.2006, 19.9.2008 and 16.12.2008. 3. Alleging over payments made to one Matadeen W.P.(C) No.7564/2009 Page 2 of 3 Sharma employed as a cook and one Vishwnath Prasad employed as a washer man under BSF an inquiry was conducted in which various persons, one of whom was the petitioner, were held guilty of negligence. These persons were the ones who had dealt with the payments released to Matadeen and Vishwnath Prasad. 4. It may be noted that the inquiry did not find any mala fide by the persons in the Accounts Department nor was any act of dishonesty found. The finding is pure and simple of being negligent while processing the claims of said two persons. 5. Pending recoveries from Matadeen Sharma and Vishwnath it was directed that all persons who were negligent should make good the loss pro rata. From the petitioner recovery in sum of Rs.6,779/- was ordered. 6. All of a sudden, without putting petitioner to notice it was directed that instead of recovering Rs.6,779/- from the petitioner he was required to pay Rs.74,177/-. This amount was enhanced to Rs.80,929/- vide order dated 19.9.2008. Representation made by the petitioner has been turned down vide order dated 16.12.2008. 7. The three impugned orders have to be set aside for the reason over payment sought to be recovered from the W.P.(C) No.7564/2009 Page 3 of 3 petitioner was crystallized in sum of Rs.6,779/- and thus without issuing any show cause notice as to why the same should not be enhanced, no further recoveries can be effected. Further, while crystallizing the sum of Rs.6,779/- as the recovery against the petitioner, proportionate to the guilt of negligence, recoveries were directed against other officers. No fresh order has been passed re-apportioning the negligence. 8. Secondly it is not in dispute that the persons to whom over payments were made with respect to the amount in credit in their provident fund account are being disbursed as pensions and we see no reason why the excess payments be not recovered from the pensions paid to them. It is not a case where the recoveries cannot be effected from those who have received excess payments. It is not a case of an irretrievable loss vis-à-vis the beneficiaries of the excess payment. 9. The writ petition is allowed. 10. Orders dated 24.4.2006, 19.9.2008 and 16.12.2008 are quashed. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE December 21, 2009 mm