ARINDAM SINHA, J. - (1.) Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appearing for petitioner refers to impugned letter dated 20 th January, 2020 and submits, his client's retiral benefits, keeping apart the sum as security, should be directed to be paid to him since no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The show cause notice was issued by a person much below rank of his client's disciplinary authority. He relies on judgment of a division Bench of this Court reported in 2007 (2) CLJ (Cal.) 156 (Union of India vs. Shri Saied Meera) paragraph 21.
(2.) Mr. Bihani, learned advocate appears on behalf of the University and submits, University Grants Commission (UGC) had by correspondence, required holding back of entire retiral benefits as step taken by the University pursuant to petitioner causing over payment to the contractor. Mr. Saha Roy submits, UGC is not a party and cannot have any role to play because his client's employer is the University. Mr. Bihani submits, since in the reply to the show cause notice petitioner had admitted the excess payment, no disciplinary proceeding was or is required. He relies on judgments of Supreme Court reported in (2009) 11 SCC 222 (H.P. RTTC v. Hukam Chand) paragraphs 12 and 13, (2008) 5 SCC 569 (Chairman and Managing Director V.S.P. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu) paragraphs 16 and 20 and (2006) 2 SCC 269 (L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd.) paragraph 15.
(3.) On query from Court with reference to impugned letter dated 20th January, 2020 Mr. Bihani submits, the contractor also admitted the excess payment but did not refund the same citing lack of funds.;