Post-superannuation recovery from pension requires departmental proceedings proving guilt and adherence to Rule 9(5) rate limits; ex-parte orders without natural justice violate law.

ORDER

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:-

(i) For quashing the impugned order dated 16.11.2021 (Annexure A-15) passed by the respondent department vide which the legal notice dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure A-11) served upon the respondent no. 1 and 2 has been rejected.

(ii) For directing the respondents no.1 and 2 to withdraw the communication/order dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure A-10) wherein the applicant has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,15,097/-

(iii) Further directing the respondents not to enforce any illegal recovery amount to Rs.2,15,097/- from the pension account of the applicant.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant joined at Electronics Test and Development Centre (in short ETDC), Solan on 07.07.1981 which was subsequently taken over by the respondents in 1986. The applicant is re-designated as Administrative-cum-Accounts Officer (A.A.O.) and posted at ETDC, Solan. He was transferred to ETDC Jaipur (Respondent No. 2) on 03.07.2001. He was given the charge of AAO of Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 17.07.2001. On the same day, the applicant was directed by Sh. G.J. Gyani, the then Senior Director (retired now) in his own capacity to take charge of Drawing and Disbursing Officer of IIQM, Jaipur. It has been submitted that the applicant was neither transferred to IIQM, Jaipur nor was its AAO. It has been pleaded that the revenue receipts from IIQM, Jaipur were being received by the Superintendent and Assistants under the supervision of Administrative Officer of IIQM while the applicant was forcefully asked to endorse office expenditure cheques/vouchers of IIQM, Jaipur under the supervision of Administrative Officer, IIQM, under its overall control and supervision. He further averred that the decade old disputed Personnel Deposit Account (Opened and Operated by IIQM, Jaipur) is made non-operational and closed in December 2002 after still resistance and refusal by the applicant in signing its cheques/vouchers.

3. The applicant was transferred to ETDC, Hyderabad on 09.06.2004. The applicant sent his detailed reply on 02.12.2004 to Respondent No. 1 in response to certain questions raised by a committee constituted by respondent no. 1 in context of above said practices going on at IIQM, Jaipur. The applicant retired from ETDC, Mohali on 30.06.2015, on attaining the age of superannuation. No Dues Certificate dated 15.06.2015 was issued in respect of the applicant (Annexure A-6). On 28.02.2018 (Annexure A-7 colly), the applicant received a communication dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure A-7 colly) received from Respondent No. 2 Centre that an amount of Rs. 2,15,097/- is to be recovered from the applicant in context of a communication dated 16.08.2017 of vigilance unit of Respondent No. 1 in view of disciplinary proceedings for recovery against Sh. G.J. Gyani, who was then head of the IIQM, Jaipur. Again, on 28.05.2018 (Annexure A-8 colly), the applicant received a communication from ETDC, Mohali to intimate a communication dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure A-8 colly) received from Respondent No. 2 that an amount of Rs.2,15,097/- is to be recovered from the applicant. The applicant served legal notice on 05.07.2018 (Annexure A-9). The respondents again issued a letter dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure A-10) to deposit an amount of Rs.2,15,0