ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the Memo No. 50 dated 01.03.2004, issued under the signature of respondent no.4 whereby an amount of Rs.1,07,500/- was inflicted to be recovered from the petitioner without any rhyme or reason.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any proceeding or any show-cause notice, the aforesaid amount has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the petitioner which is against the settled principles of law as laid down in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 [: 2015(1) JLJR (SC) 323]. He further submits that the respondents were duty bound to initiate a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules for taking any action against the petitioner after his retirement. However, no proceeding under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was ever initiated against the petitioner which is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

Relying upon the aforesaid facts and judgment referred to herein above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order.

4. Mr. S. Garapati, learned counsel for the respondent-State reiterated its stands made in the counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner was working as Fishery Extension Officer, Gumla who retired on 01.04.2004. In the year 1990-91, an advance of Rs.1,07,500/- had been given to him for construction of the five Tanks; each of 30 decimal area, but the petitioner failed to submit the adjustment certificate with respect to the aforesaid advance amount and as such, recovery of the said amount has been done from the amount of gratuity of the petitioner. He further submits that the then District Fishery Officer, Gumla through several letters/reminders requested the petitioner since 02.11.1991 on various occasions, despite the petitioner did not submit the adjustment certificate of the said advance amount and therefore the said amount has been deducted from the amount of gratuity of the petitioner with the consent of the Accountant General Jharkhand, Ranchi after his retirement.

However, Mr. S. Garapati, fairly submits that no proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules has been initiated against the petitioner for the said purpose.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service and the recovery has been made pursuant to his retirement without initiating any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Now, it is a settled law that no recovery can be made without any force of law.

6. In view of the admitted position and the settled law, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Consequently, the order as contained in Memo No. 50 dated 01.03.2004, issued under the signature of respondent no.4 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

Normally, in such type of cases the matter should have been remitted back to the concerned Respondent but since the petitioner has retired in the year 2004; as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in remitting the case back to the respondent authority in view of the provisions as enshrined in Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules.

7. The respondents are directed to refund the amount so recovered by the petitioner along with simple interest on the recovered amount from the date of recovery till the date of actual payment within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, failing which the nature of interest shall be treated as compound interest.

8. With aforesaid terms, the instant writ application stands allowed and disposed of.