IMPORTANT POINT
Imposing recoveries without proper inquiries and violating principles of natural justice is unlawful, entitling the affected party to restitution.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question orders dated 29-07-2021 and 16-10-2017 passed by the 6th respondent and the 3rd respondent respectively imposing huge recovery upon the petitioner and denial of complete pension.

2. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows :-

The petitioner was an employee of the Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (‘the Company’ for short). The date of joining of the petitioner or his service conditions or even promotions granted to him from time to time is not germane to be noticed. It would suffice if the story would commence from the date on which the issue in the lis has emerged. Between 2005 and 2007, the petitioner was working as a Section Officer at Hidkal in Raibag Taluk. During the said period, it is alleged, that the petitioner had failed to return 69 failed transformers to the stores and had thereby caused loss to the Company to the tune of Rs.20,03,952/-. An explanation was sought from the hands of the petitioner, after which, it appears the petitioner was placed under suspension on 11-04-2011. On the same cause of action the petitioner submitted a representation that after his transfer from Hidkal Sub-Division, the Assistant Executive Engineer has in fact sent all the failed transformers to the stores under D-6 accounts against an acknowledgment. The representation further requested that an amount of Rs.8,000/-is being deducted from the salary of the petitioner from 2008 and sought restoration of the deduction. The issue did not stop there. The petitioner was again directed to verify records and submit an explanation with regard to the receipt of failed transformers at the stores.

3. It appears that on the basis of the report of the 5th respondent dated 22-02-2012 reporting that there was no proof for the failed transformers received at the stores on 20-07-2007 as claimed by the petitioner, the 4th respondent directed imposition of recovery of Rs.20,03,952/-and reduced the pay of the petitioner to the lowest scale of pay in the cadre of Junior Engineer.

4. After the said event, a notification comes to be issued on the strength of an Annual Store Count report that there was shortage of 36 store materials amounting to Rs.66,23,333/-out of which 11 items were valued at Rs.7,70,381/-which was invoiced by the petitioner and a direction was issued to recover the said amount. This was without holding any inquiry or hearing the petitioner. During the pendency of all these proceedings, the petitioner retires on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-05-2013. Pension to the petitioner was not settled despite passage of 3 years and repeated representations. It is then, the Superintending Engineer of the Division orders release of only 25% of pension to be the provisional pension, 50% of DCRG amount and no commutation. The recovery thus was 75% of pension, 50% of DCRG and 100% of commutation towards loss caused on account of alleged acts of the petitioner. This is again without holding any inquiry.

5. An internal report comes to be submitted by the 5th respondent/Executive Engineer which results in another order of recovery being passed by the 7th respondent on 18-12-2019 in a sum of Rs.50,30,087/-. The recovery was on the basis of a report of the Committee appointed by the 3rd respondent to ascertain shortage of materials in Jamakhandi stores where the petitioner had worked subsequent to Hidkal Sub-Division. Thereafter, again on a detailed deduction statement proposal sent by 7th respondent on 29-06-2021, the 6th respondent proposes to effect recovery of Rs.86,52,163/-from the hands of the petitioner by order dated 29-07-2021, thereby no pension be granted to the petitioner. All these happen without holding any departmental inquiry against the petitioner.

6. On 04-12-2021, comes a correspondence between the Controller (Accounts and Finance) of the Company pointing out that no departmental proceedings or penalty orders are issued against the petitioner for recovery of severa