Back
2008 Supreme(Gau) 814
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Jasti Chelameswar and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Karabi Saha - Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura and Ors. - Respondent
Decided On: 26.11.2008
The judgment established that recovery of debts from employees must be in accordance with the legal framework and cannot be enforced through summary procedures unless authorized by law.
Headnote:
Loan Recovery - Employment Dispute - Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 - Rule 17
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Assistant Teacher in a Government school, had obtained a loan from a bank while unemployed. The bank requested the Inspectorate to recover the outstanding loan amount from the appellant's salary, which led to a deduction of Rs. 2,000 per month. The appellant challenged this deduction in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the loan transaction was purely contractual and not within the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it held that the recovery proceedings and salary deduction were illegal and void, directing the respondents to refund the deducted amount to the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the recovery proceedings and salary deduction by the State based on the loan transaction between the appellant and the bank.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the loan transaction was a contractual matter and not within the jurisdiction of the court. It also analyzed Rule 17 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988, stating that it did not authorize the State to recover debts from its employees through summary procedures.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, declaring the recovery proceedings and salary deduction as illegal and void, and directed the respondents to refund the deducted amount to the appellant.
Jasti Chelameswar, C.J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.2.2002 passed in WP(C) No. 249 of 2002, the unsuccessful writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal. The facts raised in the present appeal are not in dispute.
3. In petitioner obtained some loan from the third respondent Bank herein, sometime in the year 1987. At that point of time the petitioner/appellant was unemployed. Subsequently the petitioner secured employment under the State of Tripura as an Assistant Teacher in a Government school. By letter dated 18.4.2002 of the Education Secretariat, the petitioner was informed that the third respondent herein by its letter dated 8.2.2002 reported to the Inspectorate that the appellant was a defaulter to the Tripura Gramin Bank to the tune of Rs. 14,657. The third respondent Bank, therefore, requested the Inspectorate to recover the abovementioned amount from the salary of the appellant. Therefore, the Inspectorate had informed the appellant that an amount of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousands) only per month would be deducted and the same would be remitted to the third respondent Bank towards the discharge of the abovementioned outstanding loan.
4. Subsequently, by a proceeding dated 31.5.2002 the Inspectors of Schools, Bishalgarh, Tripura West deducted an amount of Rs. 2,000 from the salary payable to the appellant from the month of April 2002 towards the first installment contemplated in the earlier referred letter.
5. Challenging the decision of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to deduct the salary and in fact deduction of one of the installment, the appellant approached this Court by above writ petition which writ petition stood disposed by the learned Single Judge.
6. The learned Single Judge opined that the dispute is purely civil in nature and therefore, not valid within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. We are unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge for the following reasons. The loan transaction between the appellant and the third respondent is purely in the realm of a contract. Neither of the first two respondents was a party to such a contract. Where the alleged loan transaction is between two other parties, whether the obligation, if any, arising out of any loan transaction, if believed to be true are enforceable in law by the credit term, are questions which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate proceeding before an appropriate court. Normally the appropriate Forum for recovery of the amounts due to the above loan transaction is the competent civil court but with reference to certain classes of loans, an alternative way for adjudication of such dispute is created by law like the Tribunal constituted under the financial Institution for recovery of the outstanding loan amount. It is also a fact that for recover of certain classes of debts, particularly the debts due to the State, summary procedure of recovery giving a go bye to the normal procedure of the civil suit are also created under the provisions of the laws like the Revenue Recovery Act within various states. In all those cases, there is a clear authority of law enacted by the Legislature enabling the creditor to recover the amount by resorting to summary procedure stipulated by law.
8. The present case does not appear to be a case covered by any such summary procedure. Nothing is brought to the notice by the respondents to establish that the State is authorized to recover the amounts, such as one in dispute in this case, by any law. On the other hand, the defence of the State is that under Rule 17 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988, such recovery is permissible. It is declared that respondents seek to take shelter under Rule 17 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 for ju
