Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 05.02.2016 by which he has suffered penalty of recovery of Rs.3,62,200/- (one time) forthwith. He seeks a direction upon the respondents for payment of pension and other post-retiral benefits.
(2.) Plea taken by the respondents resisting the claim for pension is mainly founded on the letter and affidavit allegedly submitted by the petitioner under which he has admitted retention of Rs.10,44,200/- and before the enquiry officer he gave an undertaking that he would pay Rs.3,62,200/-, which was the unadjusted amount while he was posted at Itkhori. On the allegation of unadjusted amounts, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a First Information Report was lodged against him for mis-appropriation of Rs.3,62,200/-. The punishment order for recovery of Rs.3,62,200/- has been passed on 05.02.2016, after the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.12.2015.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have produced photocopy of Advance Register which would disclose Rs.10,74,200/- as unadjusted amount. This pertains to payments to the petitioner during the period 22.09.2008 to 2011. The respondents have produced an affidavit dated 02.09.2011 under which the petitioner has allegedly admitted Rs.10,44,200/- as unadjusted amount. The affidavits filed by the respondents would disclose that it was not the petitioner alone who is responsible for non-adjustment of Rs.10,44,200/- as well as Rs.3,62,200/-. It appears that the counter-affidavit dated 22.03.2018 did not disclose the complete facts and when a plea was raised on the above ground for resisting the prayer for payment of pension and post-retiral benefits to the petitioner, that Rs.10,44,200/- has still remained unadjusted, after this Court expressed its displeasure vide order dated 22.03.2018 a supplementary counter-affidavit dated 24.03.2018 was filed. Taking the facts pleaded by the respondents in the affidavits correct, the question which arises is why after 02.09.2011 steps were not taken by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Chatra for recovery of Rs.10,44,200/- (Rs.10,74,200/- as claimed by the respondents). If on the ground of not adjusting Rs.3,62,200/- the petitioner can suffer a departmental proceeding and registration of a criminal case, why against the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra no proceeding was initiated. Every year all expenditures, plan as well as non-plan, are audited by the Government and the Accountant-General's office. What was the audit report, how crores of rupees in cash is given to Rojgar Sevaks, are unanswered questions (in the month of December, 2008 an amount of Rs.19,47,600.00 was given in advance to the petitioner). It's a kind of "scam", which has either remained undetected or overlooked.;