- (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order/letter dated 20.8.2004 (Annexure-1) issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Jamshedpur whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit penal interest of Rs. 10.379/- under Section 7(Q) and penal damage of Rs. 28,554/ -under Section 14(B) of the Employees Provident Fund Act. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order/letter dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of the respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the said amount of penal interest and penal damage. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the demand notice dated 11.5.2005 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of the Recovery Officer directing the petitioner to deposit the said amount. The petitioner's case is that, it is running a shop in Bistupur. Jamshedpur. The respondent No. 4 served the impugned letter (Annexure-1) on the petitioner directing the petitioner to deposit penal interest of Rs. 10,379/- under Section 7(Q) and penal damage of Rs. 28,554/- under Section 14(B) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act. 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). By the said letter, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount mentioned therein immediately and produce the Bank receipt. It has been submitted that the impugned orders were passed without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and even the respondents did not send a copy of the said order to the petitioner, by which he was directed to deposit the said penal amount. The Impugned orders having been passed behind back of the petitioner and without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing, are wholly arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
(2.) The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter-affidavit. It has been, inter alia, stated that the respondents had sent notice to the petitioner and that the petitioner had knowledge about the proceeding. But in spite of notice and knowledge of the proceeding, the petitioner avoided appearance. The concerned authority, thereafter, considered the facts and materials on record and passed the impugned orders.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned orders were passed without giving any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner whereas the respondents have claimed that notice was sent to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. However, on perusal of the record, I find that no document in support of the statement of service of notice on the petitioner has been produced by the respondents. Though it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that notice was sent to the petitioner by post, no postal receipt or acknowledgment receipt or any certificate of the Postal Department has been brought before this Court in support of the said statement.;