THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.12511 of 2013
ORDER:
Seeking to declare the action of the respondents in recovering a sum of Rs.2,101/- from the salary of the petitioner from the month of January, 2013, onwards for clearing a sum of Rs.1,23,959/-, without issuing any notice to the petitioner- employee and that too after a lapse of more than five years, as illegal and arbitrary, the present Writ Petition is filed.
2) Head Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Sai Mahitha, learned counsel, representing Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while the petitioner was working as ADC under the control of second respondent, the respondents have started recovering a sum of Rs.2,101/- per month from his salary from the month of January, 2013, without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity to the petitioner. When the petitioner has approached the second respondent in this behalf, he was informed that the above recovery was in connection with the marriage loan of Rs.40,000/- taken by one Sri Yousuf Ali, driver E.No.200184 in the year 2001, from the third respondent recoverable in 60 instalments @ Rs.1,000/- per PK, J 2 WP_12511_2013 month, on the ground that the petitioner stood as a guarantor to said Yousuf Ali, who was subsequently removed from service before the said loan amount was cleared. Learned counsel has further contended that after several approaches by the petitioner, the third respondent informed him that the above recovery was effected online without any notice. Hence, the action of the respondents in recovering amounts from the salary of petitioner, without putting him on notice is an arbitrary exercise and also violative of principles of natural justice. When the monthly instalments were not recovered by the Unit Head under whom the principal borrower was working, the third respondent ought to have informed the same to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner cannot be penalized with interest and penal interest on the outstanding amount. Learned counsel has further contended that the amounts which are being recovered from the month of January, 2013, are also hit by limitation. Therefore, the action of the respondents is not justified in effecting recovery after the lapse of more than five years that too without taking any steps against the principal borrower i.e. Yousuf Ali as his entire service benefits were with the respondent Corporation. As such, the impugned action of the respondents is a colourable exercise of power. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied on the unreported PK, J 3 WP_12511_2013 judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No.24332 of 2011 dated 29.06.2011.
4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that the petitioner stood as surety to one Yousuf Ali, E.No.200184, driver of Hayath Nagar Depot, for the marriage loan of Rs.40,000/- obtained by him under Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme (in short 'scheme'), which is recoverable in 60 instalments @ Rs.1,000/- per month. As the said Yousuf Ali was removed from the services of the Corporation and the petitioner being the surety to the said employee, recoveries were effected from the salary of the petitioner from January, 2013, onwards as per the Rules of the scheme. Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that when the principal borrower is removed/retired/dismissed from the services of the Corporation, as per the Rules of the scheme, the sureties will be affected for the recovery of the outstanding amounts. Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents in effecting recovery, as the petitioner himself has agreed for the same through a contractual obligation, which is purely a commercial contract in nature, as the petitioner stood as a guarantor and he also gave his consent for the recovery. Hence, the action of the respondents in recovering the amounts is justified and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
PK, J
4 WP_12511_2013
5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by both
the parties.
6) A perusal of the material on record discloses that, in the
instant case, admittedly, in the year 2001-2002, the petitioner stood as a guarantor for the marriage loan taken by said Yousuf Ali of Rs.40,000/- recoverable in 60 monthly instalments at Rs.1,000/- per month and the loan amount has to be repaid in its entirety by the end of 2007. The counter is silent regarding the details viz., recovery of the loan amount from the principal borrower, how much loan amount was recovered from the principal borrower out of Rs.40,000/- and when the principal borrower was removed from the service of the Corporation, etc. That apart, being a surety, the recoveries were effected from the petitioner from January, 2013, i.e. after a period of 11 years, that too without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of explanation to the petitioner, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
7) The right of the respondent Corporation to recover any outstanding amount of the loan, as per the law of limitation, would be extant only for a period of three years thereafter. Similar situation was dealt with by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.24332 of 2011 wherein vide order dated 29.06.2011 the PK, J 5 WP_12511_2013 learned Judge has directed the respondent Corporation to release the retirement benefits of the petitioner therein in entirety without withholding any amounts towards the loan advanced to the 5th respondent therein.
8) In view of the above, this Court holds that the action of the respondents in recovering Rs.2,101/- from the salary of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
9) Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to refund the amounts recovered from the salary of the petitioner from the month of January, 2013, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 08-09-2023.
sur