Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar Sharma And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 21 November, 2024
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77019
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6868 of 2024
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Sharma And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Handloom And Textile Deptt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari,Gyan Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Chandra
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavits and counter affidavit filed by Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for respondents no.3 and 4, are taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 and 2, and Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.3 and 4.
3. Instant petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 18/19.6.2024, 18/19.6.2024 and 25.7.2023 passed by opposite party No.1 as contained in Annexure Nos.1 to 3 to the writ petition respectively.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders/notices dated 01.09.2022 issued to the petitioners as contained in Annexures No.5 to the writ petition.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the opposite parties to pay an amounts of Rs. 18,16,087.00, Rs.7,32,285.00 and Rs.7,01,609.18 to the petitioners respectively, alongwith 10 percent interest per annum.
iv) Such other order or direction deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
v) Allow the writ petition with costs."
4. The case set forth by the petitioners is that in terms of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) that had been introduced by the respondents, the petitioners were all found eligible for getting voluntary retirement as per the list annexed to the order dated 18.05.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition. The names of the petitioners find place at serial nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively. The specific orders with regard to the voluntary retirement of the petitioners were passed on 11.06.2022, copies of which are Annexures 8, 9 and 10 to the petition, whereby the petitioners have been relieved w.e.f. 15.06.2022. The payments of the dues of the petitioners have been made vide order dated 03.09.2022. Copy of one such order has been filed as Annexure-11 to the petition. However, while making the said payments, certain amount have been deducted which, so far as it pertains to petitioner no.1, is Rs.13,84,825.00, Rs.3,17,609.63 with respect to petitioner no.2, and Rs.3,71,066.15 with respect to petitioner no.3.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed Writ-A No.4109 of 2023 in re: Dhirendra Pratap Srivastava and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others. This Court vide judgment and order dated 30.05.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-16 to the writ petition, disposed of the petition permitting the petitioners to file separate applications afresh before respondent no.1 who was required to take a decision in accordance with law.
6. In pursuance thereof, vide orders dated 19.06.2024, 19.06.2024 and 25.07.2023 respectively, so far as it pertains to petitioners no.1 to 3, copies of which have been filed as Annexures-1 to 3 to the petition, the representation of the petitioners has been rejected and the respondents have justified the deductions which have been made from the VRS dues of the petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a perusal of the orders impugned would indicate that it has been indicated that in the years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, certain embezzlement had been carried out by the Production Assistant in which the petitioners have been found involved along with certain other employees and consequently the aforesaid amount has been deducted from the VRS amount due to the petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that prior to passing of the said order, no inquiry had been conducted meaning thereby that the petitioners have been condemned virtually unheard and thus the said orders which have been passed by which the deductions have been made have been passed in gross violation of rules of natural justice and as such the said orders merit to be quashed out rightly on this ground alone.
9. Responding to that learned Standing Counsel and Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.3 and 4, argue that it was only subsequent to the retirement of the petitioners that the aforesaid embezzlement came to light and thus once an embezzlement had been carried out in which the petitioners had been found involved consequently the amounts as indicated in the respective orders while making payment of the VRS amount have been deducted from the petitioners and thus there is no illegality in the same. However, Sri Amit Chandra fairly states that no inquiry was conducted by associating the petitioners prior to passing the aforesaid orders.
10. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records it emerges that in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme that had been introduced the petitioners all retired on 11.06.2022 and have also been relieved on 15.06.2022. Subsequent to the retirement of the petitioners while making payment of the dues certain amounts as detailed above were deducted. The aforesaid deduction has been justified by the respondents vide orders impugned by contending that the petitioners along with certain others were found to be involved in an embezzlement which has thus resulted in the respondents making deductions from the VRS amount as due to the petitioners. Admittedly, no opportunity of hearing had been accorded to the petitioners prior to passing of the said orders apart from the fact that no inquiry was also conducted in this regard.
11. Considering the aforesaid, it is thus apparent that the orders impugned by which deductions have been made and the orders by which the claim of the petitioners has been rejected are all violative of rules of natural justice.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 18/19.6.2024, 18/19.6.2024 and 25.7.2023, copies of which are Annexures 1 to 3 to the petition, are quashed. The impugned notices dated 01.09.2022 as contained in Annexure-5 cumulatively to the petition, are also quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of deductions made from the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, it would be open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law and the relevant rules.
Order Date :- 21.11.2024
A. Katiyar
