- (1.) The writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs: (a) To pay the excess amount of Rs. 1,83,030.86/ deducted from the retirement dues of the deceasedhusband of the petitioner as the respondents have deducted Rs. 1,92,000/ instead of Rs. 8,969/. (b) To pay all the balance dues including G.P.F. amount etc. of the deceased husband of the petitioner alongwith statutory interest for the period of suspension i.e. from 4.8.1989 to 3.11.1995. (c) To hold and declare that the showcause served on the son of the deceased employee by the respondents after death/superannuation is wholly illegal, improper, unjust, irrational and not sustainable in the eye of law in the facts and circumstances of this case. (d) To hold and declare that the recovery of Rs. 1,92,000/ by the respondents from the retirement dues of the deceased husband of the petitioner is in complete violation of the principle of natural justice as the employee has not availed the opportunity of hearing or filing showcause. (e) To hold and direct that showcause served by the respondents on the son of the deceased employee on 24.10.1996 for the alleged defalcation of Government fund for the period 8485, 8889 and 8990 is belated allegation showing the malafide intention of the respondents.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the husband of the petitioner was appointed in the year 1965 and at the relevant time he was posted as Nazir. He took over the charge of Nazir in the Barhet block on 10.06.1982 and he was transferred on 18.07.1988. However, as he did not hand over the charge, on 4.8.1989 he was suspended and a charge memo dated 30.07.1990 on the allegation of defalcation of Rs. 2,53,258.19/ and for misconduct in not handing over the charge etc., was served upon the husband of the petitioner. In the meantime, a report was submitted by the Block Development Officer, Barhet on 8.10.1999 seeking permission for registration of a criminal case against the husband of the petitioner for defalcation of Rs. 2,53,258.19/. Initially one Siyaram Sinha was appointed as Inquiry Officer by order dated 10.12.1993 and he submitted his report indicating various discrepancies in cash book, ledger etc. It was found that an amount of Rs. 5,72,665.20/ remained unexplained on account of unadjusted advance. He did not find any record with respect to an amount of Rs. 1,51,741.96/. In the meantime, an order dated 16.02.1996 was passed for recovery of Rs. 8,969.14/ from the gratuity of late Umanath Dubey, the husband of the petitioner.
(3.) As the earlier Inquiry could not be completed, another Inquiry Officer namely, Anil Kumar, District Land Acquisition Officer was appointed on 6.6.1996 and he submitted his report on 05.02.1997. Thereafter, the matter was verified by a team of officers comprising District Accounts Officer, Sahibganj and an Executing Magistrate and a report was submitted on 5.8.1998, based on which order dated 9.10.1998 was passed for realising an amount of Rs. 1,92,982.85 from the retiral dues of late Umanath Dubey. Aggrieved by the order of recovery of Rs. 1,92,982.85/, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking various reliefs as noticed above.;