The demand for recovery must be in accordance with the law and established principles, and the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to show cause and the inability of the college authorities to review decisions taken earlier were key legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The lis involved in the present writ petition pertains to recovery of an alleged overdrawn amount.

2. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that during the long tenure of his service since the year 1978 no allegation was ever raised that he had enjoyed excess earned leave and no disciplinary proceeding was initiated. It is only seven months prior to his retirement, the respondent no.9 by a memo dated 3rd May, 2018 directed him to refund an amount of Rs.83,904/- for having enjoyed excess earned leave of 103 days as on 31st March, 2018. After filing of the present writ petition, the respondent no.9 issued a further memo dated 20th June, 2019 taking a new stand that the petitioner had taken excess earned leave of 195 days as on 31st March, 2018 and demanding an amount of Rs.1,74,003/-. In support of the said memo, a leave statement was annexed at page 12 of the affidavit- in-opposition. A perusal of the said leave account would reveal that as on 31st March, 2017 earned leave account was marked as '-106' and the medical leave account was marked as 0' but in a letter issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.9 thereafter on 12th April, 2017, as annexed at page 18 of the affidavit-in- opposition, it was stated that as on 31st March, 2017 "you have Earned Leave (EL) : -102 days and Medical (ML) : 133 days". In paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition, the college authorities have themselves admitted that during the period from 1st April, 2017 to 30th April, 2017 and from 1st April, 2018 to 31st December, 2018, the petitioner had taken leave of 11 days and 13 days respectively. Such statement is ex facie contradictory to the leave statement annexed at page 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition. From such contradiction it is explicit that the college authorities have illegally and arbitrarily demanded refund of Rs.1,74,003/- and that too only a few months prior to his retirement.

3. He contends that the petitioner was coerced to refund an amount of Rs.83,904/- as the college authorities threatened that his pensionary benefits would be withheld unless the said amount is refunded. Such refund cannot be construed to be an admission on his part that he had enjoyed excess earned leave and medical leave. The vindictiveness on the part of the college authorities would also be explicit from the fact that upon extracting an amount of Rs.83,904/- they again demanded a further amount of Rs.90,099/- from the petitioner.

4. He submits that the alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner is not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. No error in the leave account was found by the college authorities on and from the date of his appointment in the year 1978 till 3rd May, 2018 and as such they are estopped from recovering any amount at the fag end of his service career. In support of such contention he has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. - vs- Union of India & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521, in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. -vs- State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 and in the case of State of Punjab & Others -vs- Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883.

5. Per contra, Mr. Panda, learned advocate appearing for the college authorities submits that the petitioner was a habitual absentee. As he was working in a Group-D post, the college authorities dealt with him sympathetically. He was repeatedly asked to be regular in service and he was issued several letters stating that the college authorities would be constrained to take disciplinary action against him. In support of such contention he has drawn the attention of this Court to the letters annexed at pages 16 and 17 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The excess leave availed by the petitioner was ascertained upon cross checking of the attendance register with the bio metric attendance.

6. He categorically denies the contention of the pet