Benefit Funds amounting to Rs. 1,35,706/-, Group Insurance Scheme amounting to Rs. 30,491/-, leave encashment amounting to Rs. 3,68,552/- and GPF amounting to Rs. 1,44,786/- have duly been paid to the petitioner. An anticipatory pension to the tune of Rs. 12,483/- alongwith the dearness allowances has also been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and only the gratuity amount has not been paid to the petitioner. While the petitioner was in service, under MANREGA scheme, the construction of well (kup) was carried out by the petitioner. A complaint was made against the construction activities of well (kup) carried out by the petitioner, an inquiry was ordered by constituting an inquiry committee. The said inquiry committee conducted the inquiry by affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and came to a conclusion that in the said construction activities, certain illegalities and irregularities have been committed by the petitioner culminating a huge financial loss to the public exchequer and therefore, a recommendation for recovery of the amount against the petitioner was made as per Annexure R/1. After receipt of the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking explanation / reply and in response to which, the petitioner submitted his reply/ explanation (Annexure R/2). After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 29.09.2015 to be unsatisfactory, based upon the inquiry report submitted by the committee (Annexure R/1), an order dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure R/3) was passed directing recovery of an amount to the tune of Rs. 5,34,632/- from the petitioner. The order dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure R/3) has been issued prior to the retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner has never assailed the said order dated 02.12.2015 (Annexure R/3) and therefore, the said order has already attained its finality. While the petitioner was in service, there was another recovery against the petitioner under certain heads and despite directions/orders for depositing the amounts recoverable, the petitioner did not deposit the same which is clearly evident from perusal of the communications dated
