Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner T.D. Yadav with the prayer that the orders at Annexures-8, 9 and 10 be quashed and set-aside and the respondents be directed to refund the withheld amount of Rs.10357/- which was deducted from his Gratuity amount with interest from the date of his superannution i.e. 31/5/1999 till its realisation and they may further be directed to pay to him interest on the delayed amount of pension released by the respondents w.e.f. 9/11/2000 (Ann.10) w.e.f. 31/5/1999 till the date, it is realised and they may further be directed to pay interest on the delayed payment of other retiral dues. Petitioner was serving the respondents on the post of Junior Engineer and he retired on 31/5/1999.
(3.) Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that payment of his pension and other retiral dues were paid only on 9/11/2000 and and in doing so, respondents have illegally deducted Rs. 10357/-. It was argued that petitioner was for the first time served with the notice on 6/6/2000 after a year of his retirement on the allegation that 187 cement bags were found damaged during inspection of the godown on 8/7/1999 and petitioner was responsible for making these losses good to the government because he was Site Incharge at the relevant time. He was informed that enquiry in this matter has been entrusted to the Deputy Director Kota. Petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 19414/- under protest and if eventually he was exonerated, amount would be refunded. When petitioner deposited the said amount, respondents deducted the said amount out of the payment of Gratuity. Learned counsel submitted that when the charge was handed over by the petitioner to Shri V.S. Paliwal, Junior Engineer on 31/5/1999, there was no such damage or loss found to the cement bags. Learned counsel argued that petitioner in no case was responsible for the loss of cement when the physical control of the store was with Shri Altaf Hussain Supervisor and petitioner was having only supervisory control. Till such time when petitioner was in services of the respondents, no such damage to the cement bags was discovered. This is only after retirement of the petitioner that the respondents on their own showing allege that during inspection of the godown on 8/7/1999, it was found that 187 bags containing cement were found to be sat and thus remained of no use. Learned counsel argued that respondents in reply to the writ petition have stated that though enquiry was held and petitioner and Altaf Hussain were jointly held responsible but neither any notice was given to the petitioner of such enquiry nor at any point of time any of them was associated with the enquiry. In fact, no departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement. Respondents had even issued No Dues Certificate to this effect on 25/10/1999 which is on record at Annexure-3. Now, they cannot on their own unilaterally decide to deduct amount of Rs. 10357/- from the Gratuity amount of the petitioner.;