IMPORTANT POINT
The need for a proper enquiry to establish guilt and misconduct, and the impermissibility of recovery without clear findings of misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

This Writ Appeal filed by the Oil India Limited (OIL) as appellant, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.8048/2017 disposing of the writ petition by interfering with the order dated 14.06.2017 issued by the appellant seeking to recover a sum of Rs.23,97,895/- from the outstanding dues payable to the deceased husband of the respondent No.1.1. The facts and circumstances, giving rise to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated herein below.

2. Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 13.08.1990 passed by this Court in Civil Rule No.1083/1988, the husband of the respondent No.1.1 and father of the respondent No.1.2 viz., Late Jatin Chandra Sarmah was appointed in the post of Clerk/Typist under the appellant on 16.10.1990. According to the appellant, at the time of entry into service, Jatin Chandra Sarmah had entered his date of birth to be 01.03.1956 in the bio-data proforma. The age of retirement of employees of the appellant company is 60 years. Therefore, according to the appellant, he had attained the age of superannuation and ought to have retired from service with effect from 28.02.2016 upon attaining the age of 60 years. Notwithstanding the same, Jatin Chandra Sarmah overstayed in service for a period of one more year and had eventually retired only on 28.02.2017. The appellant claims that the overstay in service by the employee was on account of tampering of the relevant register, thus, altering his date of birth by re-writing the date as “01.03.1957”. According to the appellant company, Late Jatin Chandra Sarmah had not only committed fraud but being fully aware of his actual date of birth based on supporting documents and not disclosing the same to the authorities, he is guilty of concealment of facts, thus, enjoying undue benefit in the form of extended period of service for a period of one year. By issuing the impugned order dated 14.06.2017, the appellant company had, therefore, sought to recover the sum of Rs.23,97,895/- being the salary and allowances drawn by Late Jatin Chandra Sarmah due to overstay in service for a period of one year.

3. It is apparent from the materials available on record that on 21.09.2016, the Deputy General Manager, ER(I/C)/OIL had issued a letter intimating Jatin Chandra Sarmah that he is due to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2017 and therefore, he was asked to fill up various forms and also to vacate the company’s quarter. On 27.10.2016, the Chief Engineer, Pipeline (Operation) was also advised to ask Jatin Chandra Sarmah to submit the required forms for availing post retirement medical benefit scheme. However, just four days prior to his retirement, a show cause notice dated 24.02.2017 was served upon the employee (Jatin Chandra Sarmah) alleging that he had tampered with the relevant record so as to change his date of birth to 01.03.1957. Since he was the sole beneficiary of tampering of the records, hence, it could be presumed that he was involved in the act of tampering the record. The employee was, therefore, asked to show cause as to why a sum of Rs.19,59,943.44, drawn as salary, including business related expenditure during the period from 01.03.2016 to 31.01.2017, besides other benefits, should not be recovered from him.

4. Jatin Chandra Sarmah submitted his show cause reply dated 02.03.2017 inter-alia denying the allegation of record tampering brought against him. However, the appellant company was not satisfied with the reply submitted by the employee and accordingly, vide notice of enquiry dated 03.04.2017, enquiry proceeding was initiated against the employee.

5. Aggrieved thereby, Jatin Chandra Sarmah, as petitioner, had filed WP(C) No.2512/2017 before this Court wherein, the learned Single Judge had passed an interim order dated 03.05.2017 permitting the authorities to go ahead with the enquiry proceeding. However, the appellant company was r