Bukke Arujana Naik vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7914 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7914 AP
Judgement Date : 18 October, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Bukke Arujana Naik vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 18 October, 2022

Bench: Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                WRIT PETITION No.25392 OF 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief:

"To issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Action of the Respondents 4 and 5 decided to Cut an Amount of Rs.20,000/- from the Petitioner under the head of Fine and deduction in that process started cutting of Rs.500/- per month from the petitioner monthly pay as shown in the monthly pay slip in connection with unanimously decided by the respondents as they made excess payment of Rs.7,81,339/- for drivers & Rs.7,49,223/- for Conductors in total Rs.15,30,562/- it is found in Regional Audit Team inspection Madanapalli-2 Depot from 24-01-2015 to 13-03-2015 even though without issuing any Notice of Show Cause or Call for explanation nor issuance of any Charge Memo Etc., Kept quite all the years since 2015-2021, suddenly started recovery from the month of August, 2021 inspite of Representation is made Through an Association all are illegal, Arbitrary, Unlawful, Violation of a Principles of Natural Justice, Violation of a Procedure of Law Consequently to Direct the Respondent No.4 and 5 not to deduct any amount under the head of Fine and Deduction

from the petitioner monthly Pay in the interest of the justice and pass such other order or orders."

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he joined in the

respondent-Corporation in August, 1992, and he has attended

duty over-time from the year 2013 to 2015 with other

Conductors and Drivers in Madanapalli-2 Depot. It is the

further case of the petitioner that the Regional Audit Team has

inspected Madanapalli-2 Depot and found that an excess

amount was paid and arrived the amount for Drivers at

Rs.7,81,339/- and Rs.7,49,223/- for Conductors, in total

Rs.15,30,562/-. It is also the case of the petitioner that basing

on the said audit report, the respondents are decided to cut an

amount of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner's salary under the

head of 'Fine and Deduction' and, in that process, the

respondent-authorities started cutting of Rs.500/- per month

from the petitioner's monthly salary, as shown in the monthly

pay slip and the said deduction is without issuing any notice or

show cause notice or call for explanation nor issuance of any

charge memo and kept quite all the years since 2015 to 2021,

suddenly started recovery from the month of August, 2021,

despite representation made through an Association and the

said action of the respondents in deducting the amount is

arbitrary, unlawful, violation of the principles of natural justice

and violation of procedure of law.

3. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that

deduction of the amount from the salary without issuing any

show cause notice or without conducting any enquiry is violation

of principles of natural justice and without considering the

representation made by the petitioner, the respondent-

authorities are continuing to deduct the amount of Rs.500/- per

month from the monthly pay of the petitioner. In support of his

contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thomas Daniel v. State of

Kerala and others in Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010 dated

02.05.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.18

held that the payments, which have been made mistakenly by

the employer in excess of their entitlement, the employer is not

entitled to recover the same under the following circumstances:

"(i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employer has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

4. The case of the petitioner is that he would fall under

guideline No.(iv) of the aforesaid guidelines of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court.

5. Per contra, the respondent-Corporation filed counter

affidavit and at paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit, it has

been asserted that all the employees are informed the details of

recovery and the reasons for recovery through statements affixed

on the notice board of all sections and the respondent-

Corporation has the bounden duty of paying all eligible amounts

to the employees and equally has the right to recover the due

from the employees and the display of the notice in the notice

board would sufficient and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.