Remanded

Shri. Baburao Haribhau Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Oct 2013WP/4432/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Recovery Certificate and communication withholding pension. Court quashed the certificate for violating natural justice due to lack of finding of misconduct and denial of hearing, and directed release of pension benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Recovery Certificates quashed; pension benefits directed to be released within three months; rule made absolute.

Shri. Baburao Haribhau Jadhav Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

47 wp 4432.12.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4432 OF 2012

¶5

Shri Baburao Haribhau Jadhav ... Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents.

¶6

Mr. C.T. Chandratre for the Petitioner. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP for Respondent no.1.

¶7

Mr. Ramesh D. Rane for Respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 19 OCTOBER 2013.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1 Rule.

¶12

2 Learned AGP waives service of the first Respondent. Learned Counsel appearing for the second and third Respondents waives service. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the present Petition, the same is immediately taken up for final disposal.

¶13

The Petitioner was employed as a Gram Vikas Adhikari on the establishment of the Sangli Zilla Parishad. On 30th June, 2009, the Petitioner was to superannuate on attaining the age of retirement. A day prior to that a charge-sheet was served on the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a Complaint before the Labour Court at Sangli. By judgment and order dated 5^th April,

1 of 5

47 wp 4432.12.doc

2010, the order of dismissal passed on the basis of charge sheet was set aside and the Zilla Parishad was directed to pay wages for the requisite period with 8% interest. The said order was subjected to challenge by the Zilla Parishad by filing a Revision Application before the Industrial Court. The Revision Application was dismissed. A Writ Petition was filed by the Zilla Parishad in this Court. This Court observed that the charge of misappropriation against the Petitioner was not proved and, therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the Zilla Parishad was rejected.

¶18

4 The challenge in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to a Recovery Certificate dated 28^th March, 2011 issued by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Miraj. While issuing the said Recovery Certificate, reliance has been placed on the audit report. The Recovery Certificate was issued in the sum of Rs.6,08,934.91. The challenge is also to the communication dated 28/30 March, 2011 issued by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli. The said communication directs the Petitioner to deposit the amount which is sought to be recovered on the basis of audit report.

¶19

5 There is a reply filed by the Block Development Officer to this Petition. In the Reply the Block Development Officer has relied upon a fresh Recovery Certificate dated 12^th February, 2013 issued by him which records that the amount to be recovered from the Petitioner is Rs. 3,04,000.82. Thus, the Recovery Certificate which is impugned in this Petition has been modified.

¶20

¶21

47 wp 4432.12.doc

¶22

6 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Recovery is sought to be made from the Petitioner on the basis of same allegations on which the charge sheet was filed. He urged that the concurrent finding recorded by the Labour Court and Industrial Court is that charge of misappropriation against the Petitioner was not proved. Another contention raised by him is that the Respondents are is trying to fix the responsibility on the Petitioner without taking recourse to the law and there is no finding recorded in any proceedings that any pecuniary loss has been caused to the Zilla Parishad or the Panchayat Samiti on account of any misconduct on part of the Petitioner.

¶23

7 The learned Counsel appearing for the second and third Respondents supported the stand taken by them in reply by contending that now the impugned recovery certificate dated 28^th March 2011 is substituted by the Recovery Certificate dated 12 February 2013 and the amount recoverable from the Petitioner has been reduced to Rs.3,04,000.82 ps. He states that Recovery Certificate has been issued on the basis of audit report of the relevant period and, therefore, no interference can be made.

¶24

We have carefully considered the submissions. The order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner was set aside by the Labour Court and the said order has attained finality in the sense that even this Court has upheld the finding of Labour Court and Industrial Court that charge of misappropriation was not proved against the Petitioner.

3 of 5

47 wp 4432.12.doc

The impugned Recovery Certificate dated 28^th March, 2011, which is now substituted by Certificate dated 12^th February, 2013 has been issued without there being any finding recorded by the competent authority against the Petitioner that there was a misconduct on the part of the Petitioner which caused monetary loss to his employer. On the contrary, the charge of misappropriation levelled against the Petitioner in disciplinary proceedings has not been established. Moreover, before passing the drastic order of recovery in the form of a Recovery Certificates, no opportunity of being heard was given to the Petitioner.

¶29

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the finding of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, no recovery can be initiated.

¶30

Suffice to say that the impugned recovery certificate has been issued without following due process of law and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner. Whether the second and third Respondents are entitled to initiate recovery proceedings or not is an altogether different issue. The impugned recovery certificate as modified will have to be set aside only on the ground of breach of elementary principles of natural justice.

¶31

The other impugned communication at Exhibit ‘H’ dated 28/30 March, 2011 suggests that pensionary benefits will not be released to the Petitioner unless the Petitioner deposits the requisite amount.

4 of 5

47 wp 4432.12.doc

Hence, the Petition must succeed and we pass following order:

¶36

i) The impugned Recovery Certificate dated 28^th March, 2011 at Exhibit ‘G’ to the Petition as well as modified Recovery Certificate dated 12^th February, 2013 are hereby quashed and set aside;

¶37

ii) This order will not preclude the concerned Respondents for initiating recovery proceedings against the Petitioner in accordance with law;

¶38

iii) If the retirement benefits admissible to the Petitioner have been withheld, we direct that the same shall be released to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from today;

¶39

iv) If the retirement benefits are not paid within a period of three months from today, it will be open for the Petitioner to file a fresh Petition seeking a direction to pay interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits.

¶40

v) Rule is made absolute on above terms.

¶41

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶42

katkam

¶43

5 of 5

Shri. Baburao Haribhau Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Baburao Haribhau Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gururaj Narsinha Joshi Vs Milind Arvind Mangrulkar and Othrs

Mrs. Shefali Milind Mangrulkar Vs 1)MILIND Arvind Mangrulkar and Ors.

Mr. Uttam Sheka Kshirsagar Vs Mr. Shivshankar Sidramappa Mashalkar and Ors.

Milind Hari Londhe Vs Vidya Milind Londhe

Vidya Milind Londhe Vs Milind Hari Londhe

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Alpa Rajesh Shah and Ors.