Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, ANANDA SEN, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand and Others – Appellants
Versus
Rajbali Ram – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 667 of 2022
Decided On : 10-04-2023
Delay Condonation - Recovery of Public Money - Writ Petition - State of Jharkhand - I.A. No. 1276 of 2023, L.P.A. No. 667 of 2022 - Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Section 19 - The court allowed the application for condonation of delay based on the laches of the Government officials and the interest of the State and society. The court remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge to decide whether the petitioner has actually executed the work or has returned the work or there is any submission made by the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the money given to him in advance for execution of the work and dispose of the writ application accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Junior Engineer, filed a writ petition to quash a memo for recovery of public money from his salary. The State alleged that the petitioner took an advance for executing government schemes but failed to account for the money. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, but the court found that the Single Judge misjudged the facts and remitted the matter back for fresh hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Single Judge misjudged the facts and decided the case in an erroneous manner by committing erroneous findings of facts. The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh hearing.
Issues: The issues revolved around the recovery of public money from the petitioner's salary, the petitioner's accountability for the advance taken for executing government schemes, and the misjudgment by the Single Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the misjudgment of facts by the Single Judge and the need for a fresh hearing to determine the petitioner's liability for the advance taken for executing government schemes.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was returned to the learned Single Judge for hearing afresh.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, J.
I.A. No. 1276 of 2023
1. There is a delay of 237 days in preferring this intra-court appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
3. It is apparent from the records that a substantial amount of public money is involved in this case.
4. The order impugned was passed on 15.03.2022 and the appeal has been filed on 23.12.2022.
5. By virtue of the directives given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03 of 2020, the limitation shall be supposed to start from 1st of July, 2022. Of course, even then there is a delay in preferring the appeal of about four months, however, it is further borne out from the records that the delay has been caused because of laches on the part of the certain Government officials in processing the file. For the laches of the Government officials, the interest of State and society should not be allowed to suffer. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay. Moreover, we see that reasonable opportunity was granted to the respondent-writ petitioner to file a counter affidavit/objection to the application for condonation of delay, but no objection has been filed thereon. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the intra-court is hereby condoned.
L.P.A. No. 667 of 2022
6. With the consent of the parties, this matter is taken up on merits for its final disposal.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State of Jharkhand assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2786 of 2016 on 15.03.2022 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed and Office Memorandum No. 195 dated 19.12.2015 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) for recovery of the public money from the petitioner was quashed.
8. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.
9. The petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in the Department of Road Construction. He filed the writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing Memo No. 195 dated 19.12.2015 by which the Last Pay Certificate was issued to the petitioner informing that a sum of Rs.8,30,403.57 was to be deducted from his salary as the petitioner could not account for the said amount advanced to him for implementation of the various government schemes during the period 1991 to 2002. The petitioner also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from making any further recovery from his salary or retirement dues.
10. The petitioner had joined the service as a Junior Engineer in the Road Construction Department on 03.02.1984. On 17.09.2008 the Superintending Engineer of Rural Works Department took a decision that there is outstanding amount to be recovered from the petitioner to the tune of approximately Rs.8.00 Lakhs and handing over keys of the godown. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations but no decision was taken thereon and thereafter he approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition with the aforesaid prayers.
11. The specific case of the respondents-State (appellants herein) is that the petitioner while working as a Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer since 02.02.1990, during the financial year 1991-92 at Rural Works Department, Works Division, Simdega-I, different Government schemes were executed and he took an advance of Rs.8,30,403.57. The specific case of the State is that he never submitted the accounts for the aforesaid advances. Several letters were written to him for submission of the accounts. When he did not reply the same, a notice was issued also in the newspaper but the petitioner failed to make any reply or submitted defence in his favour. It is the further specific case of the State Government that the petitioner being a Government Servant is responsible for giving accounts of public money and any advance taken should either be spent on execution of the schemes or return the mo
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a fair and accurate assessment of the petitioner's liability for the advance taken for executing government schemes, ensuring that pub....
The court emphasized that insufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal leads to dismissal, highlighting accountability in government actions.
The pension is considered as property and cannot be withheld without the authority of law, as established in the judgments in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand and Others v.....
Administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning inordinate delays by state in filing appeals; bona fides and vigilance required.
State cannot condone inordinate appeal delays via bureaucratic excuses; unexplained periods and administrative lethargy fail sufficient cause test, binding government to limitation laws equally.
The court emphasized the accountability of State-Authorities for inaction and held that the impersonal machinery of the government cannot be used as a ground for condonation of delay.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
