SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Tara Solanki W/o Late Shri Amrat Lal Solanki – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10794 of 2023
Decided on : 16-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Arora.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hemant Choudhary, AGC.

IMPORTANT POINT
Retiral benefits cannot be subjected to recovery for alleged misconduct without a formal finding of guilt, and the rights of a widow to her deceased husband's benefits must be upheld.

Headnote:

RECOVERY - RETIRAL BENEFITS - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 - The court discussed the provisions related to the recovery of embezzled amounts from retiral benefits, emphasizing that such recovery cannot occur without a finding of guilt. The court highlighted the importance of due process and the rights of the widow to receive her husband's earned benefits, ultimately ruling that the recovery order was unjustified due to the absence of a guilty verdict.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, widow of the deceased employee Amritlal Solanki, challenged an order directing the recovery of alleged embezzled amounts from her husband's retiral benefits. Her husband, a Block Elementary Education Officer, faced criminal charges for embezzlement but died before the departmental inquiry concluded.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no finding of guilt against the deceased employee in either criminal or departmental proceedings. It ruled that the recovery order was unjustified and set it aside, emphasizing the rights of the widow to her husband's earned benefits.

Issues: Whether the recovery of embezzled amounts from the retiral benefits of the deceased employee was justified in the absence of a finding of guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that retiral benefits are not a bounty but earned rights of the employee. Recovery of amounts without a finding of guilt constitutes unjust punishment. The prolonged delay in proceedings further undermined the justification for recovery.

Final Decision: The court set aside the recovery order and directed the respondents to pay the family pension and other service dues to the widow along with arrears and interest.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. Grievance of the petitioner, widow of the deceased employee, is against the order dated 09.09.2022 (Annex.3), vide which direction was given for the recovery of the amount of alleged embezzlement from the retiral benefits of petitioner’s husband. Further, seeks directions to the respondents to make payment of gratuity, the difference in salary of subsistence allowance and salary for the suspension period of petitioner’s husband, annual grade increments of the suspension period, selection grades, promotions, and regular pension from the date of retirement till the death of the petitioner’s husband and payment of family pension to the petitioner with arrears from the date of death of her husband with interest thereon @ 18% per annum.

2. Relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband Shri Amritlal Solanki was working on the post of Block Elementary Education Officer. He retired on 30.09.2010 and died on 24.12.2021.

2.1. An FIR No.30/2006 came to be lodged against the petitioner's husband and others with the Anti-Corruption Bureau Chowki, Jodhpur in which after investigation, a challan was filed before the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Jodhpur, where the trial is going on.

2.2. In respect of the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner's husband was issued a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The departmental inquiry also could not be completed till the death of the petitioner's husband.

2.3. On 09.09.2022, an order was passed by the respondent No.1. The departmental inquiry was dropped. At the same time, the period of suspension was treated as regular and he was held to be entitled to all benefits during the suspension period. It was also directed that the amount of embezzlement shall be recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner's husband.

2.4 After the death of the petitioner's husband, the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid case were also dropped against him vide order dated 10.03.2022 and the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents for granting her service benefits of her husband as well as family pension. The respondents have not done the needful. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Defence taken in reply is that while Shri Amritlal Solanki was posted as Senior Deputy District Education Officer cum ?.?.?.?., Osian, during the period 6.9.2003 to 22.1.2005, he was holding the charge of supervision of wheat distribution under Mid-day Meal Scheme by the contractor from the godown of the Food Corporation of India. Shri Amritlal Solanki, however, failed to discharge the duties as per guidelines of the Scheme, committed irregularities, and embezzlement of 7182.50 quintals of wheat in connivance with the contractor. In the said case, the Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted an investigation and found embezzlement of wheat costing Rs.1,34,74,241/-, and Shri Amritlal Solanki and 9 other persons were found to be involved in the case.

3.1. It is submitted that the inquiry report, it was mentioned that during the course of inquiry, the husband of the petitioner neither appeared before the Inquiry Officer nor submitted any reply, defence/evidence/witness, etc. Since the husband of the petitioner passed away on 24.12.2021, therefore, in terms of the guidelines provided by the State Government vide circular dated 16.3.1998, in respect of such circumstances, the departmental proceedings against the husband of the petitioner were dropped. It was also ordered in respect of the loss caused to the State exchequer by the embezzlement made by the husband of the petitioner that recovery will be made from the retiral benefits.

3.2. It is an admitted position of the case that the recovery of the embezzled amount is yet to be made from the retiral benefits of Late Shri Amritlal Solanki in accordance with the statutory provisions and guidelines issued by the State Government/Department of Personn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top