Bombay High Court
Sunil Dinkarrao Gudade vs Maharashtra State Seeds ... on 12 June, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 Judg. wp 3155.00.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.3155 of 2000
Sunil Dinkarrao Gudade,
Rathi Nagar, Amravati 444 603.
.... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1] Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd.,
through its Managing Director,
Shastri Nagar, Akola.
2] Bijay Kumar Sinha,
former Managing Director,
Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd.,
Shastri Nagar, Akola.
3] Baldeo Singh,
former Managing Director,
Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd.,
Shastri Nagar, Akola.
4] Dr. Pradeep Vyas,
Managing Director,
Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd.,
Shastri Nagar, Akola.
5] The Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Government of Maharashtra & Chairman,
Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd.,
Mantralaya, Mumbai (MS). .... Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2017 00:04:18 :::
2 Judg. wp 3155.00.odt
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the petitioner.
Shri S.G. Jagtap, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.5.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram : R. K. Deshpande &
Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
Dated : 12 June, 2017
th
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R. K. Deshpande, J.)
This petition challenges the order of suspension pending
enquiry passed on 17-02-1999 against the petitioner. The enquiry
was concluded and the petitioner was held guilty of only one charge
and he was exonerated in respect of the other charges. After receipt
of the enquiry report, the management which is the Maharashtra
State Seeds Corporation Limited decided to accept the notice of
voluntary retirement given by the petitioner. Accordingly, an order
was passed on 8/15-04-1999 accepting the voluntary retirement with
retrospective effect. However, subject to the condition of recovery of
certain amount which was due from the petitioner the orders of
recovery were passed on 18-06-1999, 31-08-1999 and 12/15-10-1999.
2] The terminal benefits payable to the petitioner were calculated
as under :-
3 Judg. wp 3155.00.odt
1] Amount payable on account of Encashment of
149 days EL balance as on 31-03-1999 upto
Rs. 58,011.00.
2] Amount payable on account of compensation
equivalent to one and half months emoluments
(Basic + DA) for each Balance year of Service i.e.
Rs. 3,700 + 7,980 =Rs. 11,680/- x 1.5 x 14 years
10 months upto Rs. 2,94,919/-.
3] Amount of gratuity as (10,805 x 16 years x 15
days) / 26 days upto Rs.1,05,972/- approximately.
The total amount due and payable to the petitioner was thus
worked out to Rs. 4,58,902/-.
3] It appears that the total dues payable to the petitioner on
acceptance of his voluntary retirement were calculated at
Rs.4,58,902/- approximately from which the recovery was ordered as
under :-
1] DE Amt. + Seed Shortage (-) Rs. 18,942.00.
2] MSSC Recovery DM Wardha (-) Rs. 23,403.16
3] Mahabeej Society Loan (-) Rs. 86,900.00
Total amount payable to the petitioner
was worked out to- Rs. 3,29,656.84/-
4 Judg. wp 3155.00.odt
4] This matter was admitted on 11-09-2002 and this Court did
not grant any interim order. The matter was called out for final
hearing on 08-06-2017 and 09-06-2017. None appeared for the
petitioner and hence it was kept today. Heard Shri Jagtap, the
learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.5.
5] Though, the departmental enquiry was held against the
petitioner in respect of seven charges levelled against him, only one
charge was proved of proceeding on strike though he was working in
a supervisory category and was not covered by the definition of
workman. In the show cause notice for punishment, an amount of
Rs.10,000/- was proposed to be recovered towards the charges on
conducting departmental enquiry. However, the notice of voluntary
retirement given by the petitioner was accepted without imposing any
punishment upon the petitioner in respect of the charge which was
held to be proved. After going through the petition, we find that in
fact the challenge is not to the acceptance of notice of voluntary
retirement, but it is to the recovery proposed and made by an order
dated 12/15-10-1999 from the retiral benefits payable to the
petitioner.
5 Judg. wp 3155.00.odt
6] It is not possible for us to sustain the recovery of Rs. 18942.00
under the head of DE amount + Seed Shortage and of Rs.23,403.16
under the heading MSSC Recovery DM Wardha. There is no
enquiry conducted nor there is anything placed on record to show
that such amount was recoverable from the petitioner. In the absence
of any such enquiry, finding or even calling for an explanation, the
recovery of this amount cannot be permitted to be made from the
terminal benefits available to the petitioner. The last item of
recovery of Mahabeej Society Loan amount of Rs.86,900.00.
According to us, this amount can be recovered from the total amount
of compensation payable to the petitioner of Rs. 2,94,990/-.
7] In view of the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case
of State of Jharkhand and others vs. Jintendra Kumar Shrivastava
and another, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3383, it is not possible to
permit recovery of the amount from the leave encashment or
gratuity payable to the petitioner in the absence of an order of
termination passed by the respondents. The respondent Corporation
shall, however be entitled to retain an amount of Rs.86,900.00 from
the amount payable on account of compensation payable to the
petitioner and rest of the amount can be disbursed to the petitioner.
8] So far as the challenge to the order of suspension is
6 Judg. wp 3155.00.odt
concerned, the claim has become infructuous.
9] In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The office
order dated 12/15-10-1999 and the other recovery orders passed by
the respondents are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of
recovery of an amount over and above Rs.86,900.00 from the
terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. The notice of voluntary
retirement which has been accepted by the respondents is
maintained. The respondents shall retain the amount of
Rs.86,900.00 from an amount of Rs.4,58,902.00 payable to the
petitioner and rest of the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner.
The refund of the amount shall be with simple interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of recovery till realization.
10] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
