VIJAY PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttaranchal and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Alok Singh, J. -
(1.) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing rejoinder affidavit is condoned. Rejoinder affidavit is taken on record. CLMA No. 8091 of 2013 stands disposed of accordingly.
(2.) Petitioner is working as 4th Class employee (Sweeper) in the office of Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Lansdowne. Petitioner is semi illiterate person. He applied for withdrawal of certain amount from his G.P.F. account. Amount asked for by the petitioner was sanctioned and permitted to be withdrawn. Later on, it was found that petitioner has withdrawn excess amount. In other words, has withdrawn amount over and above permissible withdrawal. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.08.2005 asking the petitioner as to why excess amount withdrawn by him be not recovered from the petitioner along with interest. Petitioner submitted his reply saying since he was semi illiterate, therefore, he is not supposed to make calculation and to understand the permissible limit. Thereafter, impugned order was passed on 30.04.2005 whereby recovery of excess amount along with penalty was directed from the petitioner. Thereafter, subsequent impugned order dated 17.01.2006 was also passed stopping one increment permanently. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that excess amount withdrawn by the petitioner is being recovered from the petitioner and he has no objection to it. He further contends that since petitioner is semi illiterate person and permitted by the competent officer to withdraw the amount, therefore, imposition of penalty of stopping of one annual increment permanently and recovery of excess amount with penalty is illegal and unjustified.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.