Back
2004 Supreme(Mad) 75
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN
S.Ramar Pandian - Appellant
Versus
Chief Executive Officer - Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.3071 of 1997 and WMP No.5166 of 1997
Decided On : 30 January 2004
The central legal point established in the judgment is the lack of authority to proceed against retired employee's benefits and the absence of provision for disciplinary proceedings after retirement.
Headnote:
Pension Recovery - Government Employee - Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Act 1959, Section 23; Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, Rule 9(2)(a) - The court quashed the order for recovery of pension benefits and directed the respondent to refund the withheld amount with 9% interest, citing lack of authority to proceed against the retired employee's benefits and absence of provision for disciplinary proceedings after retirement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, challenged the recovery of a sum from his pension benefits by the respondent. The petitioner argued that the recovery was illegal as no disciplinary proceedings were initiated during his service, and the amount did not represent a loss due to his actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery order was unjustified as no disciplinary action was taken during the petitioner's service, and the respondent lacked authority to proceed against the retired employee's benefits. The court directed the respondent to refund the withheld amount with 9% interest.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the recovery order, the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings after retirement, and the applicability of pension rules to the respondent's employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of provision for disciplinary proceedings after retirement and the lack of authority to proceed against the retired employee's benefits rendered the recovery order unjustified.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to refund the withheld amount to the petitioner with 9% interest.
By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.
2. The above writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Clause-3 of the proceedings of the respondent in Rc.No.12637/P1/94 dated 20.1.1997 in so far as it relates to the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,58,405/- and for a consequential direction, directing the respondent to pay the amounts withheld along with the interest at the rate of 18% from 20.1.1997 till the date of disbursement.
3. It is contended by the petitioner that he has joined the services of the State Government in its Khadi Department as Grade-I Assistant during the year 1959 and during the year 1960 when a separate Department was constituted viz., Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter called as the "Board"), he was absorbed as Grade-I Assistant. The petitioner has served as Grade-I Assistant from 1964 to 1977 and later on he was promoted as Central Khadi Officer in the year 1989 and again promoted as Assistant Khadi Officer with effect from 1.1.1991. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was permitted to retire from the services through the proceedings of the respondent in Rc.No.16466/94/G-IV(1) dt.28.3.1994 with effect from 31.3.1994. The said order of retirement proceeds to the effect that the individuals mentioned therein, numbering 11 employees, were permitted to retire from their services and the concerned Officers were requested to relieve them after obtaining necessary undertaking in respect of any amount which is found to be recoverable from them later on. Except the above observation, the said order of retirement does not attach or reserve any condition in respect of the employees including the petitioner. However, even at the earlier point of time, the Assistant Director of the respondent-Board has issued a memo dated nil.6.1993, which proceeds to the effect that a sum of Rs.1,55,590.25 representing sale proceeds was not collected, while the petitioner was in service as Grade-I Assistant at Tiruvellore depot for the period from 1963-64 to 1978-79. The petitioner has submitted a reply to the said memo and it is only thereafter, he was permitted to retire without reserving any right to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, the respondent-Board has sent a further memo on 4.8.1994, reiterating the same averments of the earlier memo, to which the petitioner has submitted a reply. Thereafter, the respondent-Board, by a letter dated 26.2.1996 has informed the petitioner that a sum of Rs.1,41,207.70 is still remaining as outstanding and he was directed to explain in detail about the non-recovery of the said amount. As per the directions, the petitioner appeared in the Office and explained the steps that he has initiated to recover the amount and also pointed out that the other Officers of the Board have failed to initiate steps to recover the same and he cannot be held responsible. Suddenly, by impugned proceedings dated 20.1.1997, while sanction was accorded for the payment of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, in Clause-3 of the said order, it is indicated that a sum of Rs.1,58,405/- is liable to be recovered from the pensionary benefits and a sum of Rs.97,520/- was adjusted and the balance amount was ordered to be recovered, which resulted in filing the above writ petition.
4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal inasmuch as the same was passed in the absence of any condition reserving liberty by the Board to initiate disciplinary proceedings, while the petitioner was permitted to retire by proceedings dated 28.3.1994. It is further contended that the respondent has not initiated any disciplinary proceedings, while the petitioner was in service and all that the respondent did was by issuing a memo, the petitioner was called upon to explain about the non-recovery of the amount, to which necessary explanation was submitted. It was not known a
