LAKSHMI NARAYAN MUKHOPADHYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
February 20,2002
LAKSHMI NARAYAN MUKHOPADHYAY
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
TSUBONGSE SANGTAM VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2004-12-16] [REFERRED TO]NARAIN LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTI MATHUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR LAL PANWAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER VS. DEENDAYAL GAUD [LAWS(MPH)-2012-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KANIJA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
DEV VERMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-283] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SALAM VS. MAHARANA PRATAP UNIVERSITY & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
MRS. INDRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-12-70] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal, Calcutta bench dated 24.2.1995 and 29.6.1995 in o. A. No. 1170/93 and review petition in m. A. No. 117/95 respectively.
(2.)The appellant was employed in the ministry of railways as inspector of works, in-charge. He voluntarily retired from service on 30. 11.1991. Since the post-retirement benefits were not paid to him in full, he approached the tribunal. The tribunal on perusal of the record produced by the respondents held that the appellant, inspector of works supplied to contractors excess of material and a sum of Rs. 49,536/- was recoverable from the appellant's gratuity amount. The impugned order dated 24.11.1992 was upheld.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has erred in law inasmuch as this amount was arrived at by the respondent without giving opportunity to the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India has contended that by letter dated 12.6.1991 the appellant was asked to explain and thereafter, the Divi. RIy. Manager (Engg. ) by letter dated 24.11.1992, i. e. , after the voluntary retirement of the appellant, directed that the amount should be recovered from the amount of gratuity of the appellant. We extract below the relevant part of the letter which was produced before the high Court.
"It has been observed that Sri L. N. Mukhopadhyay while functioning as IOW/sny issued the following excess materials to contractors M/s. Hiramoti Construction (P) Ltd. Jamshedpur without observing the guide lines issued by the Hd. Quarters office and this office. Competent authority issued orders for recovery of Rs. 19,535/- from the DCRS and Other dues of Sri L. N. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-IOW/sny. You are therefore, requested to make necessary recovery of Rs. 49,536/- from the settlement dues of Shri L. N. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-IOW-SNY with an intimation to him and the recovery particulars may be intimated to this office to close the same. Sd/- divl. RIy, Manager (Engg. ) chakradharpur
(2.)The appellant was employed in the ministry of railways as inspector of works, in-charge. He voluntarily retired from service on 30. 11.1991. Since the post-retirement benefits were not paid to him in full, he approached the tribunal. The tribunal on perusal of the record produced by the respondents held that the appellant, inspector of works supplied to contractors excess of material and a sum of Rs. 49,536/- was recoverable from the appellant's gratuity amount. The impugned order dated 24.11.1992 was upheld.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has erred in law inasmuch as this amount was arrived at by the respondent without giving opportunity to the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India has contended that by letter dated 12.6.1991 the appellant was asked to explain and thereafter, the Divi. RIy. Manager (Engg. ) by letter dated 24.11.1992, i. e. , after the voluntary retirement of the appellant, directed that the amount should be recovered from the amount of gratuity of the appellant. We extract below the relevant part of the letter which was produced before the high Court.
"It has been observed that Sri L. N. Mukhopadhyay while functioning as IOW/sny issued the following excess materials to contractors M/s. Hiramoti Construction (P) Ltd. Jamshedpur without observing the guide lines issued by the Hd. Quarters office and this office. Competent authority issued orders for recovery of Rs. 19,535/- from the DCRS and Other dues of Sri L. N. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-IOW/sny. You are therefore, requested to make necessary recovery of Rs. 49,536/- from the settlement dues of Shri L. N. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-IOW-SNY with an intimation to him and the recovery particulars may be intimated to this office to close the same. Sd/- divl. RIy, Manager (Engg. ) chakradharpur
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.