Balbir Chand Taxali vs Haryana State and Others

Mohinder Pal, J.—Balbir Chand Taxali (Plaintiff-Appellant) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration challenging orders dated 28.2.1984 and 24.4.1984 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Karnal, P.W.D., Public Health Branch and the Accountant General, Haryana respectively was dismissed.

I have heard Ms. Ranjeeta Gill, Advocate, appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Rajiv Kwatra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the Respondents and have perused the impugned judgments.

The Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 28.2.1984 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and the order dated 24.4.1984 passed by the Accountant General, Haryana were illegal, void, against the rule of natural justice, ultra vires to the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that after the retirement of the Plaintiff there was no relationship of master and servant and the recovery of Rs. 17,467.95 from his death-cum-retirement gratuity was not tenable.

The trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as six issues but the main issue whether the order dated 28.2.1984 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Karnal PWD Public Health Branch, by which a sum of Rs. 17,467.95 recovered from the Plaintiff from DCRG etc. read with order dated 24.4.1984 passed by the Accountant General, Haryana were illegal, void and against the rules of natural justice was decided against the Plaintiff. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record held that the Plaintiff did not care about the utilization of material being issued to the contractor. It was also not clear that the material was required for the bona fide requirements of the works in process. As this was a material lapse on the part of the Plaintiff in discharging his official duties, the Plaintiff issued material to the contractor in excess of the bona fide requirements. He was given due opportunities to defend himself. During the course of inquiry he admitted his contributory negligence. He was heard before initiation of action against him. Finding no lacuna in the departmental inquiry, it was held that no interference is required in the orders dated 28.2.1984 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Karnal, P.W.D. and the order dated 24.4.1984 passed by the Accountant General, Haryana and dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the Plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.

The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. It is admitted that as per Rule 7.49 of Manual of Orders of the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) Punjab, 1962, the Appellant, who was working as Sub Divisional Engineer, was required to ensure that excess supply (than the actual requirement) should not have been made, particularly, in case the price of material issued was higher in market or it was likely to rise in the near future. As he had supplied excess material to the contractor, he was held liable to pay the loss caused to Government exchequer. Under Rule 6.16-A (6) of Chapter VI of Punjab Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rs. the Rules'') the government was within its right to effect recoveries from gratuity of the delinquent officer due to the loss caused to the Government by the act of omission or commission of the Government employee. Rule 6.16-A(6) of the Rules reads as under:

Government will have the right to effect recoveries from a gratuity sanctioned under this rule, in the same circumstances as recoveries can be effected from an ordinary pension under Rule 2.2(b). This will also apply in the case of officers who entered service before the 31st July, 1939, and who did not exercise the option referred to in Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 1.2-B.

A perusal of the above rule shows that by effecting recovery of Rs. 17,467.95 from the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity of the Plaintiff, no illegality was committed nor any mandatory rule had been violated by the Engineer-in-Chief and then by the Accountant General, Haryana, Chandigarh in passing the above orders. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice as the proceedings against the Plaintiff were started under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1982 when he was in service. A show cause notice was issued to him on 4.11.1980. He submitted his reply dated 8.12.1980 to the allegations. After considering his reply, the Engineer-in-Chief passed the impugned order. From a careful reading of the reply submitted by the Plaintiff to the show cause notice and the summary of allegations given by the Engineer-in-Chief, it is evident that the Plaintiff had admitted the issuance of material from the store under his charge to the contractor in excess of the requirements. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below.

Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit.