Quashed

Chagan Singh v. U S R T C and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 May 2014CW/7407/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes the respondent corporation's unauthorized deduction of Rs.2500/- per month from the petitioner's salary. The court held the recovery void due to lack of notice or hearing and directed a refund, reserving the right for lawful recovery after proper procedure.

What did the court decide?

The deduction of Rs.2500/- per month from salary is quashed; the respondent is directed to refund the recovered amount.

Chagan Singh Vs U S R T C and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7407/2005 Chagan Singh Vs. R.S.R.T.C and Anr.

¶5

Date of Order :::: 15.05.2014

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶8

Mr. Ashok Mishra, for the petitioner. None present for the respondents.

¶9

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

The writ application has been preferred by the

¶12

petitioner with the prayer under relief clause, which reads thus:

¶13

(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction or in the nature thereof pleased to declare the action of the respondents in deducting amount of Rs.2500/- per month from the salary of the petitioner in pursuance to the entry of shortage made in LPC of the petitioner, as bad in law and accordingly quash and set aside the same and it may be held that no amount is liable to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner;

¶14

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction or in the nature thereof may further direct the respondents to refund the amount, which the respondents have deducted from the salary of the petitioner, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum;

¶15

¶16

(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner with costs.

¶17

Briefly, the essential materials facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are: that the petitioner was charged and proceeded with departmental enquiry for financial illegalities. The charged are described and detailed out in order dated 12.11.2001 (Annexure-1). As consequence of the enquiry proceedings, a recovery to the tune of Rs.71,002.50, was ordered and it was further directed that an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, be also moved before the Industrial Tribunal in the concerned case No.121/1990, pending therein, for approval of dismissal of the petitioner for the proved misconduct. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that during pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner submitted an affidavit before the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation, with a proposal to forgo the monetary benefits for the period w.e.f. 12^th

¶18

¶19

November, 2001, till his reinstatement while maintaining his claim for gratuity and pensionary benefits with continuity of service and other financial benefits including grant of selection scale in view of completed service of 9, 18, 27 years, as admissible to the employees of the Corporation with notional fixation of pay. The respondent-Corporation, taking a lenient view and considering the proposal of the petitioner to settle the matter, issued an order dated 29^th September, 2004, reinstating the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. However, the respondent-Corporation effected a recovery to the tune of Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) per month w.e.f. April, 2005 from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved of the aforesaid deduction from his salary, has approached this Court by way of the present writ application.

¶20

This Court while issuing notice of the writ application on 15^th September, 2005, also granted ex-parte interim order staying the recovery, as pleaded by the petitioner.

¶21

¶22

On 25^th April, 2014, the matter came up before this Court. Mr. Anurag Kalawatia appeared on behalf of the respondent-Corporation in the capacity of associate advocate to Mr.J.M.Saxena, counsel for the respondents, and prayed for two weeks time to file reply to the writ application. Prayer was granted with the condition that no further time will be allowed on this count.

¶23

Today, neither the counsel nor representative of the respondent-Corporation is present in Court to conduct the matter on their behalf.

¶24

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶25

From the pleadings, materials available on record and in view of the order dated 12.11.2001, it appears that the respondent-Corporation, has enforced the recovery of the amount, as determined vide order dated 12.11.2001, without any notice to the petitioner or an opportunity of hearing.

¶26

A glance of the office order dated 29^th September, 2004, further reflects that the matter

¶27

¶28

was settled between the parties, with the terms and conditions stipulated therein, while making an order for reinstatement of the petitioner.

¶29

In view of the undisputed facts, it appears that the respondent-Corporation deducted an amount of Rs.2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) w.e.f April, 2005, from the salary of the petitioner, without affording an opportunity of hearing or notice to the petitioner. Thus, violation of the principles of natural justice, is apparent on the face of the record. From the tone and tenure of the office order (Annexure-3) dated 29^th September, 2004, it appears that the matter pending before the Industrial Tribunal, was also settled.

¶30

Be that as it may, without commenting upon the factual aspects, any further and status of proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, it is evident that the action of the respondentCorporation in effecting recovery to the tune of an amount Rs.2500/- per month, cannot be sustained as the same has been made without affording an opportunity of hearing or any notice, to the

¶31

¶32

petitioner.

¶33

Consequently, the action of the respondentCorporation in deducting an amount of Rs.2500/from the salary of the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶34

The respondent-Corporation is further directed to refund the amount recovered from the salary of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the respondent-Corporation would be at liberty to take action, if some recovery is due, after determination of the liability and amount due, in accordance with law, affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶35

For the reasons and discussions herein above and with the observations and directions as indicated, the writ application stands disposed of. 15. In view of final adjudication on the writ application the stay application stands closed. However, in the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶37

Pcg/45

¶38

All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the

¶39

¶40

judgment/order being emailed. P.C.Gupta, P.A.

Chagan Singh v. U S R T C and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chagan Singh v. U S R T C and Anr.

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

Rinku Lal Gupta and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Vijesh Kumar Vs Director, Technical Education

Smt Meeta Majumdar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr Adarsh Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Krishna Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Manoj Choudhary and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.