ORDER

17.1.2017. As the facts and grievances of the applicant in O.A. No.2793 (c)/2013 is different from other O.As. and has no nexus with O.A. No.2793 (c)/2013, the said O.A. be delinked from other batch of cases and be listed separately for hearing.

2. Since the applicants in all these cases are similarly situated and the relief sought for is one and same, all these O.As. are taken up together for the sake of convenience and a common order is passed and O.A. No.2447 (c)/2013 is taken as a lead case.

3. Heard Mr. R.N. Nayak, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.

4. The applicant in O.A. No.2447 (c)/2013, who is a retired ACF, has prayed to quash the order of recovery of Rs.70,320/- passed by respondent No.3 dated 10.4.2013 at Annexure-1 read with decision of joint verification committee ( in short JVC ) report dated 11.12.2012.

5. In O.A. No.2448 (c)/2013, the applicant who is a retired ACF, has prayed for quashing of order of recovery of Rs.80,224/- passed by respondent no.3 at Annexure-1 on the basis of the audit report read with decision of joint verification committee (in short JVC) report dated 11.12.2012.

6. In O.A. No.2449 (c)/2013 the applicant who was working as Range Officer, has impugned the order of recovery of Rs.5,21,772.30 at Annexure-1 passed by respondent No.3 on the basis of the Audit Report read with the decision of the JVC reported dated 11.12.2012.

7. Similarly the applicant in O.A. No.2520 (c)/2013, who was a Range Officer, has prayed for quashing of order of recovery of Rs.2o,476/- at Annexure-1 which is based on the basis of the Audit Report as well as report of the JVC.

8. The applicant in O.A. No.2930 (c)/2014, who is a retired Forest Ranger, has also impugned the order of recovery of Rs.34,213.22 dated 4.1.2013 at Annexure-2 sought to be made in accordance with the letter issued by respondent no.5 to respondent No. 4.

9. The case of the applicants in nutshell is that the recoveries in the above noted O.As. have been ordered to be recovered from their regular salaries on the basis of the Audit Report, which is said to have been directed to be recovered, which was duly approved by the JVC.

10. Learned Counsel for the applicants argued that as per the Finance Department Office Memorandum No.31741 dated 22.8.1991, the Government has taken the following decision.

“While taking up pension cases in the pension Adalat for finalisation, it has come to the notice that in some cases D.C.R. Gratuity etc. have been held up pending settlement of audit objections. It has to be borne in mind that the findings in an audit report/para do not impose any liability on the Government servant concerned unless the same is established in a Departmental proceedings initiated against him under the Orissa Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962. Such liability does not come under the purview of Government dues. It is mandatory that Government dues are required to be cleared by the retiring Government Servant before the date of his retirement. The existing provisions of Rule 157 and 158 of the O.P.R. 197 do not define the term of Government dues. The expression “Government dues” includes only arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, balance of house building or conveyance advance, over payment of pay and allowances or leave salary and arrears or Income Tax deductible at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961,

As such the amount arising out of Audit report/para which has not been termed as “Government dues” can not be recovered from D.C.R. Gratuity. Such dues can, however, be realized provided the responsibility is fixed by following the appropriate procedure”.

11. Hence, it has to be borne in mind that the findings in an Audit Report/para do not impose any liability on the Government Servant concern unless the same is established in a departmental proceeding initiated against him under CCA Rule 62 and such l