AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr Abhijeet Anand, Advocate
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
By a separate order, we have condoned the delay in instituting this appeal and now we proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits.
This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 02.09.2024 disposing of W.P.(S) No. 4120 of 2021.
Mr Shahbaj Akhtar, learned AC to AAG-III for the appellant-State states that the impugned order incorrectly records that the Enquiry Officer had completely exonerated the respondent herein. He referred to the enquiry report and submitted that the same holds the respondent to be guilty but with the rider that the quantum of loss has not been quantified.
Mr Shahbaj Akhtar submits that based upon the observation in the enquiry report, the Chief Conservator of Forest constituted a High Powered Committee which has quantified the loss at Rs. 9,57,832.65. He submitted that there was no error in seeking to recover this amount from the gratuity payable to the respondent based upon such quantification.
Learned counsel for the respondent (original petitioner) defends the impugned order based upon the reasonings reflected therein. He points out that so-called High Powered Committee did not follow the principles of natural justice before any quantification. He submitted that once the Enquiry Officer held the charges as not proved whether on merits or for want of quantification, the Chief Conservator of Forest had no jurisdiction to constitute such Committee and that too, after the retirement of the respondent in 2016.
The rival contentions fall for our determination.
In this case, Departmental Proceedings were held against the respondent for having allegedly caused financial loss to the Department. The enquiry report reveals that in respect of some of the charges, the respondent was exonerated. In respect of the other, the Inquiry Officer held that some loss could be attributed to the respondent. However, the same could not be or was not quantified.
Based upon the above report, the Disciplinary Authority, does not appear to have taken any action as is contemplated under the rules. This means that the Disciplinary Authority did not disagree with the findings or give any notice of disagreement to the respondent herein and take some different view.
Instead, after a gap of almost two to three years and that too after the respondent had retired in the meanwhile in 2016, the Chief Conservator of Forest constituted a committee for quantification of the loss. This committee, without giving the respondent herein any advance notice or in any event, reasonable opportunity, determined the loss at Rs. 9,57,832.65.
Based upon the above determination, which has no nexus with the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the respondent while he was in service, an attempt is made to deduct the amount of Rs. 9,57,832.65 from out of the gratuity amount payable to the respondent. The basis on which the gratuity amount of the respondent was withheld for all this time despite his retirement is also is also not known, and to say the least, is quite surprising.
Thus, after the enquiry proceedings were not taken to their logical conclusion and based upon some quantification by an authority which does not answer the description of an Inquiry Officer, there was no question of holding that the respondent caused loss of Rs.9,57,832.65 to the State Exchequer. The learned Single Judge has correctly interfered with the attempt to recover this amount, out of the gratuity payable to the respondent.
Based upon the observation in paragraph 5 of the impugned order that the enquiry report had completely exonerated the respondent, there is no case made out to interfere. Though, this may not have been a case of complete exoneration, still, no further steps were taken by the Disciplinary Authority as is contemplated under the rules i.e., disagree with the findings or to otherwise hold a fresh enquiry in terms of the rules, if permissible.
As noted earlier, the respondent has already retired in 2016. The enquiry proceedings were initiated against the respondent just before his retirement. Now, at this stage, it could be most inequitable to permit any deduction from the gratuity amount payable to the respondent. Even the withholding of the gratuity amount for all this while does not prima facie appear to be any action in consonance with the law.
For all the above reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and consequently dismiss the same. Pending I.A., if any, also does not survive and is disposed of.
Learned counsel for the respondent now states that the amount of Rs.9,57,832.65 is already recovered from the gratuity amount payable to the respondent.
The learned Single Judge has held that such decision to recover was illegal. We have endorsed this view of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appellants must refund this amount of Rs. 9,57,832.65 to the respondent within six weeks from today together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date this amount was recovered / deducted till the actual date of payment. The Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Chief Coordinator shall be responsible for ensuring that this refund is made within six weeks from today and he must file a compliance report in this Court by 30th of September, 2026 after giving an advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondent.
Though, this appeal is disposed of, post the matter ‘for orders’ on 07th of October, 2026 to consider compliance.