Shiv Charan Sharma vs Commissioner, Geology & Mining Department

The petitioner, who was serving as assistantDriller Grade I (also known by the designation of DrillingAssistant) was rendering help to the

concerned officer dealing with Petrol, Oil and Lubricants, (for short called P. O. L.) in the Directorate of Geology and Mining. It is alleged that on

enquiry, the petitioner was held guilty of having pilferred P. O. L. from the Departmental Stock, in consequence whereof the petitioner's services

were terminated by order No. DGM/PA/3940/76 dated April 19, 1976 and a further penalty was imposed on him of the realisation of an amount

of Rs. 3,800; as cost of ""P. O. L. Lost"". Subsequent to the said order, the respondents started recovery as arrears of land revenue of the said

amount against the petitioner by endorsing a requisition for recovery to Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said

order of recovery and has challenged the said action as illegal and ultra virus the powers of the respondents by this writ petition.

After a very long time on February 27, 1987, learned Additional Advocate General filed the reply to the writ petition without filing the counter,

as such it shall be deemed that no counter has been filed because that simple reply cannot be termed as such. The petition was, therefore, heard

finally.

The short question, which arises for determination in the instant case pertains to the right of the respondents to recover the said amount of Rs.

3800/ as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of Section 90 of the Land Revenue Act. As pointed out the facts are not controverted by the

counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents on the face of the order impugned, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated

by order dated April 19, 1976 also does not dispute that it imposes a penalty of recovery of amount of loss caused to the Government to the tune

of Rs. 3,800/, which falls within the definition of penalty as prescribed by Clause (v) of Rule 30 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control

and Appeal) Rule, 1956 (herein after called the rules). Thus it is clear that by the same order, double penalty has been imposed on the petitioner, i.

e., the termination of the services and the realisation of the loss caused to the Government. The petitioner has not challenged in this petition the

termination of his services, he has, however, challenged only to this part of the order, which pertains to the recovery of the said amount. Learned

counsel for the respondents was unable to point out that such an amount, which is declared as one of the punishment under Clause (v) of Rule 30

of the rules is covered by the definition of sums due under section 90 of the LandRevenue Act. Similarly the requisition issued by the

Commissioner, Geology and Mining to Deputy Commissioner, Jammu for the recovery of the said amount from the petitioner issued on June 18.

1976 does not show that the procedure prescribed for the determination of the amount due was ever adopted by the concerned Department and

said requisition can in any manner be termed as the Certificate of recovery. It also appears that the amount was also determined without affording

an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, which is violative of the principles of natural justice as well.

For all the reasons stated hereinabove, I find that the proceedings for recovery started against the petitioner of the amount of Rs. 3,800/ as

arrears of land revenue are liable to be quashed, which cannot be taken in a summary manner. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The recovery

proceedings against the petitioner as arrears of land revenue are hereby quashed, however, it will not debar the respondents to further proceedings

if available against the petitioner under the ordinary civil law. Under the circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs. It also disposes of

C. M. P. No. 176 of 1976.