- (1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order issued under Memo No. 189 dated 27.3.2006, directing recovery of Rs. 1,93,831.54 from the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Sahani that the case of the petitioner was not considered before passing the impugned order. He further submitted that the retiral dues has also not been paid to the petitioner.
(2.) Counsel for the State, referring to the counter affidavit, filed as far back as on 13.4.2009, submitted that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year 1998 with respect to theft of the said amount, which was the loss caused to the Government. Charges were framed against the petitioner and show cause was asked. The Inquiry Officer after conducting the inquiry, in accordance with law, found the petitioner guilty and recommended for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner. Second show cause was also issued, but the petitioner submitted his reply only after reminders. Petitioner's reply was not found satisfactory and only thereafter the said order was passed for recovery of the said amount, which is perfectly legal and justified.
(3.) Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder controverting the said position. He challenged the said order of recovery passed in the year 2006, after about 3 years by filing this writ petition. Petitioner retied in year 2008. It appears that the relevant aspects have been taken into consideration, while passing the order of recovery. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of punishment.;