JUDGMENT :

The husband of the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager, in Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (In short, ‘BSFC’) and died on 14.09.2010 in harness. He rendered his services for about 35 years in different capacities in various districts of Bihar in the BSFC before his death. After the death of her husband, the petitioner filed a representation before the District Manager, BSFC, Sitamarhi, on 05.01.2011 for payment of death -cum-retiral benefits. Instead of paying the death -cumretiral benefits, the respondent no. 4 lodged First Information Report against the petitioner as well as her son, bearing Dumra Police Station Case No. 19 of 2012, under Sections 406/409/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, in which the police, after completion of investigation, submitted final form, exonerating the petitioner and her son of the offence alleged in the First Information Report.

2. The petitioner approached this Court earlier in CWJC No. 3216 of 2016, which was disposed vide order, dated 16.05.2016, with a direction to the respondents that the issues on which there is no controversy should be resolved and settled within a period of eight weeks. A contempt application, bearing MJC No. 4539 of 2018, was also filed by the petitioner for alleged non-compliance of the order, dated 16.05.2016, passed in CWJC No. 3216 of 2016. After filing of the contempt application by the petitioner, the respondent authority came out with the impugned order, bearing memo no. 11171, dated 31.10.2019, whereby the respondent has accepted the claim of the petitioner towards the death -cum-retiral benefits, but at the same time, ordered for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,93,28,883.58/-from the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner had defalcated the food grains of the aforesaid amount while he was working as Assistant Manager, at different places.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the BSFC, stating therein that the Managing Director of the BSFC has considered the claim of the petitioner towards death -cum-retiral benefits and found that a sum of Rs. 9,86,883/-is payable to the husband of the petitioner and while he was posted as Assistant Manager, in Sitamarhi, Muzaffarpur and Vaishali, he defalcated Rs. 3,18,765.01/-and also defalcated food grains, while he was posted in Sitamarhi, worth Rs. 4,19,06,511/-and after imposing interest over the defalcated amount and adjusting the amount payable to the petitioner towards death -cum-retiral benefits, the total recoverable amount comes to Rs. 14,93,28,883.58/-.

4. A certificate case, bearing Certificate Case No. 01 of 2012-13 for recovery of the defalcated amount has also been lodged against the petitioner, which has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing separate writ application, bearing CWJC No. 5673 of. 2016.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure-11), submits that the impugned order has been passed without initiating any departmental proceeding or any other proceeding for recovery of defalcated amount during the lifetime of the husband of the petitioner. After the death of her husband, a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner for defalcation of the food grains allegedly done by her husband. He further submits that the respondent-authority has not mentioned any provision of law/rules, which authorizes the authorities to recover the death -cum-retiral benefits from the widow. He further submits that the recovery has been ordered against the late husband of the petitioner on the basis of audit objection and this Court, in the case of Md. Alimuddin v. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2015 (2) PLJR 184, has held that the audit objection cannot be a proof of offence by itself and it may be a starting point for enquiry and culminating in an order of punishment in a departmental proceeding. The impugned order is, therefore, completely arbitrary, mala fide and unreasonable.

6