- (1.) The petitioner (an Assistant Engineer in the Public Health and Engineering Department) retired from services on 31.7.2006. The petitioner was posted at Pratapgarh Division of the respondent department. During physical verification, shortfall and deficits in stock and certain other irregularities came to be noticed against him. Just before the petitioner was approaching the age of superannuation, certain communications came to be issued proposing to recover from the petitioner the amount of pecuniary loss caused by said deficit and shortfall in stock, which occurred between the years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2003-04. Few of the notices given to the petitioner in the year 2005/2006 have been placed on record as Annex. P/6, P/7 and P/8. By way of the notices, he was directed to deposit the amounts indicated therein so as to make good the losses. An order (Annex. P/9) came to be issued by the Executive Engineer, PHED, Pratapgarh Division on 16.10.2006 whereby the petitioner was warned that shortfall and deficit in the department were attributed to him during his service period and he was communicated about the same by various letters and notices issued to him between July 2005 and April 2006. The petitioner was intimated that the inaction of the petitioner to make good the incurred losses amounted to adamancy and was viewed seriously by the senior officials of the respondent department. It is further alleged that the petitioner did not pay any heed to the warning letter and failed to deposit the losses attributed to him.
(2.) It is noteworthy that the petitioner superannuated on 31.7.2006 while these exchanges were going on. The petitioner's post retiral benefits to the tune of about Rs. 4,50,000/- were withheld by the respondents upon which he approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7903/2008. In reply to the said writ petition, the respondents claimed that a domestic enquiry was initiated in relation to the deficit and shortfall in stock attributed to the petitioner but the same remained unconcluded. The Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the order and if upon such enquiry, any dues were found against the petitioner on account of his negligence, the respondents were given liberty to withhold the petitioner's retiral dues to that extent. It was further directed that if no enquiry was held and if the responsibility of the financial loss could not be fixed on the petitioner for any reason, then his retiral dues would have to be released forthwith after the expiry of the aforesaid period of three months.
(3.) In pursuance of the aforesaid directions given by the Court in the petitioner's earlier writ petition, the department formed an Enquiry Committee. The petitioner was sent a notice dated 6.6.2012 for participating in the enquiry. The enquiry committee examined the record and concluded the proceedings by order (Annex. P/20) dated 8.6.2012 holding that the recovery proposed earlier from the petitioner was justified.;