Ch.Hari Babu vs The Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 2392 AP

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
                                AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                       WRIT PETITION No.9248 of 2019
                       (Taken up through video conferencing)

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)


          Proceedings         in    Roc.No.14047/99/B6          dated   20.05.2011

directing recovery dues to the tune of Rs.3,97,276/- by deducting

Rs.10,885/- per month for 36 months and balance amount in

37th month was unsuccessfully challenged before the Tribunal.

Hence, order dated 17.07.2017 in O.A.No.4091 of 2014 passed by

the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for

short, 'the Tribunal') is assailed before us.


          Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the 1st respondent did not have authority to make such deduction

from the salary of the petitioner. He has relied on the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih1.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

1st respondent wherefrom it appears that the deductions have

already been effected and the retiral benefits have also been

handed over to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner

had taken loan vide voucher No.2951/17-09-2010 for

Rs.3,97,276/- for works of post training classes and other works

from the general accounts of the Corporation. As he did not adjust

the amounts, the impugned proceedings had been issued for

recovery, as aforesaid.

(2015) 4 SCC 334

From the materials on record, particularly, the averments in

paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit, we note that the petitioner

while functioning as revenue officer had been advanced loans to

the tune of Rs.3,97,276/-, but he had failed to account for the

same and accordingly, the adjustment was made. Such

adjustment being made with regard to money entrusted to the

petitioner who had failed to account for, the said sum cannot be

said to be over drawals made by the petitioner on mistake and the

Tribunal rightly distinguished the ratio in Rafiq Masih (supra).

Hence, we are of the view there is no illegality in the order of

the Tribunal and the 1st respondent-employee had ample powers to

direct recovery of the advances made by way of adjustments.

Further more, we note that such adjustments have already been

made and the pensionary and other benefits after adjustment have

been released to the petitioner. Hence, nothing survives in the writ

petition.

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

_____________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

Date: 14.07.2021 Ivd

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.9248 of 2019 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)

Dated: 14.07.2021

Ivd