NAINITAL, India, March 12 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 10:

1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.K. Verma, learned counsel for respondent- writ petitioner.

2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.03.2017 in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1150 of 2016, whereby the writ court has allowed the writ petition challenging the action of the appellants in ordering recovery of sum of Rs.10,56,093/- from the retiral benefits of the respondent- writ petitioner, and the appellants herein have been directed to release the retiral/ pensionary benefits to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits.

3. The respondent- writ petitioner retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2014 from the post of Manager, Gas Service Jaspur. The appellants have withheld Rs.10,56,093/- from the pension on basis of an audit objection, as the case of the appellants was that the respondent- writ petitioner, who was entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the accounts and records of the gas agency failed to furnish proper reconciliation in respect of the said amount.

4. It is admitted that before the retirement of the petitioner, he was served with a charge-sheet on 28.01.2014 and he also submitted a reply thereto explaining the charges. However, the disciplinary proceedings were not concluded and in the meantime, he retired on 31.10.2014. Thereafter, also the appellants did not continue the disciplinary proceedings and for all practical purposes, the disciplinary proceedings now stand dropped.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent- writ petitioner was responsible for maintaining the accounts and he having failed to furnish proper reconciliation, was rightly visited with the recovery of the amount, however, he concedes that till date there is no order passed in any disciplinary or judicial proceedings holding the petitioner guilty of negligence and ordering recovery on basis thereof.

6. Consequently, the bar contained in Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations would be squarely applicable and merely on basis of audit objection, it would not be open to the appellants to recover any sum from the retiral benefit of the respondent- writ petitioner.

7. In view of the above, we find no illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge to warrant interference. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.