Recovery of embezzled amounts from an employee without departmental inquiry violates procedural safeguards, and the right to pension is protected as property under Article 300A.

Order :

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.)

1. Since in both the cases, issue for determination is one and the same, whether despite denial by the employee of allegation of embezzlement of lacs of rupees, without any departmental proceeding or any judicial proceeding (criminal case), any recovery can be made from that employee and his retiral dues can be withheld, therefore, both the petitions are being heard together and decided by this common order. For convenience, most of the documents have been referred from WPS No. 8586/2019.

2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable (Mechanic) on 1-7-1982 in the police department. On 11-6-2011, while he was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector (Mechanic), he was directed to do duty in ‘Shourya Petrol Pump’, Police Line, Raipur (henceforth, referred to as ‘petrol pump’) without any written/formal order. From 11-6-2011 to 7-4-2014, he performed duty in said petrol pump under oral instruction of respondent No. 4/5. Thereafter, upon oral instruction, he was returned to Police Line, Raipur in M.T. Branch. Petitioner was holding technical post and in the petrol pump also, he was looking after mechanical fault. Sole in-charge of the petrol pump was respondent No. 4/5. Under oral direction and under pressure of respondent No. 4/5, petitioner looked after transaction of petrol pump, whereas he was not having any experience of keeping books of account in respect of transaction of petrol pump. He performed his duty honestly, but vide communication dated 23-3-2014 (Annexure P-3) and 4-9-2014 (Annexure P-5), respondent No. 4/5 informed him that, upon physical verification of books of account of petrol pump, deficiency of Rs. 30,47,345.91/- and Rs. 27,23,659.00 respectively was found and he was directed to deposit said amount. Under pressure, the petitioner deposited Rs. 8 lacs twice. Vide communication dated 7-9-2015 (Annexure P-6), respondent No. 4/5 informed that as per audit report of petrol pump, during in-charge period of petitioner i.e. from 12-6-2011 to 7-4-2014, deficiency of Rs. 80,49,387.34/- has been found in account books, therefore, he was directed to submit explanation. Vide Annexure P-7 dated 8-9-2015, petitioner submitted his explanation stating inter alia that he was unknown about functioning of petrol pump and, therefore, he had refused to perform duty there, further, he has not committed any theft or mistake and due to such allegation of huge embezzlement, he has been highly upset. Despite that, respondent No. 3/Superintendent of Police, Raipur issued show cause notice/adjustment notice (Annexure P-1) dated 11-9-2015 stating inter alia that, on being audited the account books of petrol pump from firm of Chartered Accountant during the period of 12-6-2011 to 7-4-2014, deficit of Rs. 80,49,387.34/- has been found, as such, he was directed to clarify his position and ensure adjustment. Reply vide Annexure P-8 dated 14-9-2015 was submitted by the petitioner, claiming himself to be innocent. But, without considering reply of petitioner, respondent No. 3 passed impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated 16-11-2015 directing deduction of Rs. 10,000/- per month from his salary, which continuously deducted from his salary. Challenging aforesaid show cause/adjustment notice (Annexure P-1) dated 11-9-2015 and recovery order (Annexure P-2) dated 16-11-2015 issued by the respondent No. 3/ Superintendent of Police, Raipur, petitioner filed WPS No. 8586/2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

“a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondents for calling the records pertaining the impugned orders for its perusal.

b. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned recovery order, dt. 11/09/2015 Annexure P/1 and dt. 16/11/2015 Annexure – P/2.

c. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to return