wp2184.08 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2184 OF 2008
Dadarao s/o Lakhuji Dambhare,
aged about 60 years, occupation
Retired, r/o Plot No. 20, Ashirwad
Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. Prof. Shri Vasant Purke ... (Deleted as per
Court's order dated
03.10.2008.)
3. Director of Education (Secondary
and Higher Secondary), M.S. Pune.
4. Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
5. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
6. Rashtra Sewa Samaj
through its Secretary, 270/1,
Laxminagar, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N.B. Jawade, AGP for respondent No. 1 & 3 to 4.
Shri V.A. Dhabe, Advocate for respondent No. 6.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DECEMBER 07, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:08:04 ::: wp2184.08 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) The petitioner before this Court assails the order dated 14.08.2007 passed by respondent No. 1, directing recovery of amount of leave salary paid to various employees from him. A later order passed on 14.09.2007 quantifying the amount of recovery at Rs.5,45,578/- has also been questioned. It appears that as the petition remained pending, recovery has not been done.
2. We have heard Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jawade, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to 5 and Shri Dhabe, learned counsel for respondent No. 6.
3. A perusal of order dated 14.08.2007 shows that at that juncture, the petitioner was opposing recovery of Rs.9,31,405/-. The State Government on 14.08.2007 found that though Smt. Indumati Chavan had tendered application for voluntary retirement, she worked till reaching the age of superannuation and hence normal salary needed to be paid to ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:08:04 ::: wp2184.08 3 her. Thus, recovery on account of salary paid to her for work done was not permitted by the State Government. It permitted only recovery on account of wages paid to various employees during their leave period. The reason for permitting recovery is, not getting the said leave sanctioned/ approved from School Committee. However, there it has been pointed out that till said date, no steps were taken to get those leaves retrospectively sanctioned. Because of this direction on 14.09.2007, after deducting the amount payable to Smt. Indumati Chavan and one Manohar Deoghare, balance recovery of Rs.5,45,578/- has been worked out. This recovery is on account of wages paid to the employees during their leave period.
4. We find that the Education Officer has on 20.06.2003 sent a communication to the petitioner and therein he suggested recovery of Rs.3,52,429/- on account of wages paid to Smt. Chavan for work done. Smt. Chavan submitted an application to proceed on Voluntary Retirement and that application was never placed before the management by the ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:08:04 ::: wp2184.08 4 petitioner. It is not the case that after expiry of period of 90 days, she stopped reporting and management has also not come up with a defence that after 90 days, it treated the post as vacant. It is not the case of the management that Smt. Chavan did not work till her superannuation. The State Government has, therefore, deleted the amount of wages paid to Smt. Chavan for the work done and has not permitted recovery. Insofar as wages to others are concerned, the Education Officer has found that without holding any meeting of School Committee, as if he had all the powers, petitioner sanctioned leave applications and permitted amounts to be released for the same. The amount accordingly released is Rs.4,92,094/-. For this irregularity, the Education Officer has found said amount recoverable from the petitioner.
5. This aspect is looked into by the Deputy Director of Education and on 28.02.2005, he stayed recovery of wages of Smt. Chavan from the petitioner. Similarly, in respect of leave wages, that officer found that leave was sanctioned by the petitioner as the Secretary of School Committee and at the most ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:08:04 ::: wp2184.08 5 there was some irregularity, he felt that irregularity can be cured by placing the matter before the School Committee and hence the recovery was not warranted.
6. The order passed by the State Government thereafter on 14.08.2007 is already mentioned by us supra. As per order dated 14.09.2007, only amount of Rs.5,45,578/- is now recoverable from the petitioner on account of said leave dispute. It appears that after screening of records in School on 24.08.2006, a report was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education by a Committee consisting of the Education Officer, Education Deputy Inspector and one Assistant Self Employment Instruction Officer. This Committee of three persons found that recovery on account of wages paid to Smt. Chavan was unwarranted. They also felt that leave applications could have been placed before the School Committee and proper resolution would have resulted in wiping out the same.
7. Though, Shri Dhabe, learned counsel, has attempted to urge that there has been loss to public revenue, ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:08:04 ::: wp2184.08 6 the management is not in a position to substantiate the contention. The amount of leave wages are released by the Education Officer and it is not the case of the employer that though leave was not due or was not available to the credit of concerned employee, the petitioner with an oblique motive permitted the same to be enjoyed and also allowed it to be encashed. Respondent No. 6 - management could have pointed out this fact. It would have then shown fabrication of documents by the petitioner and, therefore, would have shown a more serious nature of misconduct.
8. Thus, only taking advantage of a technical flaw, that leave applications are not approved by the School Committee, recovery has been worked out. In absence of proof of factual loss of revenue, this recovery also cannot be sustained. In this situation, we make the rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (1) and (2). However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
*GS.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:08:04 :::