- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) This petition lays challenge to orders dated 13 April 2005, 23 June 2005 and 27 January 2006. The orders dated 13 April 2005, 16 April 2005, 16 April 2005 and 23 June 2005 sought to effect recovery from the pensionary dues of the petitioner. These orders were preceded by issuance of a show cause notice dated 29 January 2005, which was admittedly served on the petitioner on 25 February 2005. The last order of 23 June 2005 was subjected to challenge in a writ petition before this Court on the ground that although the petitioner in response to the initial show cause notice had submitted a detailed reply on 28 March 2005, the same had not been taken into consideration before passing of the order dated 23 June 2005. Considering the above challenge a learned Single Judge of this Court on 22 August 2005 while disposing of the writ petition provided that the State respondents would revisit the entire exercise and take into consideration the reply of the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. It is pursuant to the above direction of this Court that the order dated 27 January 2006 came to be passed. The validity of these orders fall for determination in these writ proceedings.
(3.) The petitioner, who was a Junior Engineer with the National Highway Division of Public Works Department, Deoria is stated to have been transferred by an order dated 23 June 2003. It is contended on the petition that pursuant to the above transfer order, the charge was forcibly taken from the petitioner on 30 June 2003 by one Sri Hare Ram Pandey. The writ petition carries further allegations of Sri Hare Ram Pandey making interpolations in the relevant records. It transpires that the quality of construction materials and the charges levelled in respect thereof came up for scrutiny before the respondents, who constituted a four member committee which visited the site between 16 August 2004 to 30 August 2004 and submitted a report with respect to the shortcomings and quantified the loss caused to the Government to the extent of Rs. 8,13,910.61. Based on the conclusions recorded by the above Committee, a show cause notice dated 29 January 2005 is stated to have been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner who attained the age of superannuation on 31 January 2005 averred in his rejoinder affidavit that this show cause notice was served on him only on 25 February 2005. The State respondents did not dispute or deny this fact as would be evident from the pleadings taken in the supplementary counter affidavit and more particularly in paragraph 7 thereof. As noticed above, upon receipt of the above show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 28 March 2005. Without noticing or taking into consideration the aforesaid reply, the order dated 23 June 2005 came to be made holding that a sum of Rs. 8,13,910.61 stood recoverable and in case no reply is submitted within the period of 15 days, the same would be recovered from the petitioner. It is this direction which stands reiterated in the order dated 27 January 2006.;