informed the Executive Engineer that there were certain recoveries towards loss of cement, steel 85 rice pending against the petitioner. It is further submitted that in fact the recovery was started in the year 1988 itselfand w.e.f. August, 1988, Rs.300/- was deducted from his pay. At the tirae of his retirement, the remaining amount of rs.37,936/- out of total recoverable amount of Rs.43,936/- sill reraained to be recovered. Respondenfs have also raised an objection that challenge to order dated 26.11.1991 is highly belated. It is submitted that recovery was effected from August 1988 and order was passed on 26.11.1991. As such, the challenge made to the recovery proceedings at such a belated stage is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches, as before filing this petition, no challenge was made to the same by the petitionerinthe pasteversince1988.Itisalsosubmittedthatinfact petitionerhadreceivedricebagstothetuneof22.325M.Twhichis evidenced by receipt (Annexure R-2) issued by the petitioner himself on 30th March, 1987. Since the petitioner did not give any account in respect of 22.325 MT of rice, recovery was required to be made. It is also submitted that vide letter dated 18.6.1990 (Annexure R-3) in response to representation of petitioner's wife, it is stated that a recovery of Rs.59,721/- is pending against the petitioner. It is argued that on account of aforesaid recoveries pending against the petitioner, pension of the petitioner could not be finalized. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that an amount of Rs.48,713/- has already been recovered as evidenced from Annexure R-4.
