Bombay High Court
Dadarao Lakhuji Dambhare vs State Of Mah. Thru. Its. Secty. & 5 ... on 7 December, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
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.
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
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
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
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,
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.
