The Court disposed of an old writ petition regarding the quashing of a recovery order against the petitioner's retirement benefits. Relying on a prior judgment, the Court quashed the disciplinary and appellate orders and directed the immediate refund of the recovered amount.
Impugned orders quashed; direction to refund Rs. 6,584/- to petitioner within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 6443 of 2008
4 22.04.2019 Heard Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite parties- OSRTC.
The petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 17.12.2004 under Annexure-6, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and he further seeks for a direction to opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.6,584/- from the retirement benefits of the petitioner.
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no.3 has passed the order of recovery of Rs.72,348.50, which has been made confirmed by opposite party no.4 in appeal without assigning any reason thereof. He further submits that similar question had come up for consideration in Umakanta Dash v. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (W.P.(C) No. 11813 of 2004 disposed of on 27.04.2017), therefore, this writ petition may be disposed of in the light of the above judgment.
Mr. P.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite parties sought for time to file counter affidavit.
Since this is an old matter of the year 2008 and in the meantime 11 years passed, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant further adjournment. Therefore, on the pleadings available on record, this writ petition is
being disposed of applying the principle of doctrine of non-traverse.
Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records it appears that the case in hand is similar to the judgment rendered by this Court in Umakanta Dash (supra). Therefore, this Court disposes of this writ petition in the light of the judgment passed in Umakanta Dash (supra). The order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority is hereby quashed and this Court did not incline to remit the matter back after to the disciplinary authority for fresh adjudication after lapse of 14 years. Therefore, direction is given that in the event the opposite parties have recovered the amount of Rs.6,584/-, the same should be refunded to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
.….……………………
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J
Ajaya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of recovery against the petitioner's retirement benefits should be quashed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the recovered amount.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Umakanta Dash v. Orissa State Road Transport CorporationFollowed¶4
Umakanta Dash v. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (W.P.(C) No. 11813 of 2004)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Petitioner
Orissa State Road Transport Corporation
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
Parties & counsel
