JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The petitioner, who was working as a Sectional Supervisor under the Orissa Forest Development Corporation and retired as Deputy Vigilance Officer on 31.05.2006, has filed this application seeking following reliefs:

“(a) why the order of recovery dated 4.2.2008 and 11.3.2008 vide Annexure-3 issued by the opposite party no.1 against the petitioner will not be declared illegal, arbitrary and the same will not be quashed and

(b) why the deduction of Rs.96,638.00/- vide Annexure-2 out of sanctioned amount towards unutilized leave salary of Rs.1,15,456.00/- in favour of the petitioner will not be declared illegal, arbitrary and the same will not be quashed and

(c) why a direction will not be given to opposite parties to refund the deducted amount i.e. 96,638.00/- including the interest accrued thereon till the date of payment within a stipulated period.

(d) why the order dated 26.08.2008 vide Annexure-14 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner will not be declared illegal and the same will not be quashed.

And if the opposite parties do not show cause then the rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/order/direction to the opposite parties and any other order as deem fit be passed.”

2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that after retirement of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,15,456/- was sanctioned by Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. (OFDC) vide letter dated 11.03.2008 in lieu of his salary for unutilized earned leave of 289 days standing at his credit subject to recovery of dues of the corporation outstanding against him. An amount of Rs.96,638/- was deducted towards the dues of the corporation stated to have been outstanding against the petitioner from out of Rs.1,15,456/-, which was sanctioned towards unutilized salary. It is pertinent to mention here, prior to his retirement though several requests were made by the petitioner for grant of no due certificate, no action was taken by the authority, and finally the petitioner was extended with all the financial benefits admissible to him after retirement, except Rs.96,638/- which was already deducted from the unutilized salary. The said amount has been calculated on different heads, but the findings in audit report dated 02.05.2002 do not impose any liability on the employee concerned unless the same is established in a departmental proceeding initiated against the employee under the concerned rules. In the office memorandum dated 22.08.1991, the procedure for recovery of dues arising out of non-settlement of audit objections has been mentioned. Without following the same, direction for recovery was given and an amount of Rs.96,638/- was recovered. As against the said order though the petitioner preferred appeal, the same was rejected by the appellate authority by passing a cryptic order on 26.08.2008 vide Annexure-14. Hence, this application.

3. Mr. M.R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that, while considering the appeal, the appellate authority has not applied its mind and by a cryptic order dated 26.08.2008 has rejected the same. It is further contended that the recovery is said to have been made on the basis of the report of the Triangular Committee, but under the Rules of the Corporation no such committee has been authorized to recommend such recovery. As such, the recovery so made on the basis of the so called report of the Triangular Committee cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

4. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1, per contra, justifying the order passed by the appellate authority states that the amount recovered is wholly and fully justified and, as such, the authority has not committed any illegality in recovering the amount of Rs.96,638/- from the unutilized salary sanctioned by the authority in favour of the petitioner.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this matter is b