M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 31.8.2004 (P -7) whereby respondent No. 2 has held that the petitioner has caused financial loss amounting to Rs. 1,71,277/ to the Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited (for brevity, 'the Milkfed') on account of wrongful withdrawal of House Rent Allowance during her posting at Milkfed Sales Office, Delhi. As a consequence recovery of Rs. 63,226/ - was ordered to be effected out of the encashment of unavailed leave payable to her on retirement. In order to recover the remaining amount of Rs. 1,08,051/ - from her, respondent No. 2 has proposed to initiate arbitration proceedings against her under Sec. 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. However, before initiation of proceedings an opportunity to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 1,03,051/ - in respect of alleged over withdrawal of House Rent Allowance has been given to her. The petitioner has sought directions to the respondents commanding them to release her retiral benefits alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement i.e. 31.8.2003.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that from 1985 to 2003 the petitioner had worked as Area Sales Manager with the Milkfed and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2003. She was not paid her retiral benefits, which forced her to make a representation on 23.10.2003 (P -l). On 2.3.2004, a show cause notice was issued to her mentioning that she had wrongly claimed House Rent Allowance amounting to Rs. 1,73,535/ -, for the period 1985 -86 to 2003 -04 as per the calculations contained in Annexure -A attached with the show cause notice. It was alleged that House Rent Allowance withdrawn by the petitioner was in contravention of instructions contained in letter No. 956 -FCW -65/l 548, dated 20.2.1965 and No. 3023 -FlCW (5) -71/14416, dated 20.7.1971, inasmuch as, she was residing with her husband in a Government accommodation bearing House No. 22, West Avenue, I.T.I., Campus, New Delhi, and thereafter shifted to house No. 1 in the same campus. The aforementioned accommodations were allotted in the name of her husband. The petitioner was, thus, asked to show cause as to why the aforementioned amount be not recovered out of her payable dues (P -2). On 12.3.2004, the petitioner gave reply to the show cause notice (P -3). On 29.3.2004, she gave another reply on the basis of record made available to her by the Delhi Sales Office of the Milkfed (P -4). On 5.7.2004, after lapse of about one year, when her retiral dues were not released to her, she again made a representation to respondent No. 2 (P -5). On 21.8.2004, respondent No. 2 accorded the sanction for payment of gratuity payable to the petitioner, however, no sanction was given for payment of the amount of leave encashment (P -6). On 31.8.2004, the impugned order as noticed in the opening para was passed by respondent No. 2, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.
(3.) Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that no recovery after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.8.2003 could be effected on the allegation that the petitioner has withdrawn excess amount of House Rent Allowance. He has referred to the impugned order dated 31.8.2004 (P -7) and argued that the aforementioned order has been passed after one year of the retirement of the petitioner, which is impermissible, In support of his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Ram v/s. State of Haryana (supra), higher pay scale was granted to an employee, erroneousl , 1995(1) S.CT. 668. He has submitted that in Sahib Ram's case y without any misrepresentation on the part of the employee. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has directed that in such circumstances no recovery be made form such an employee.;