Bombay High Court
Smt. Sangita Wd/O Santosh Mahakal ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla ... on 14 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp3324.15.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3324/2015
PETITIONERS : 1. Smt. Sangita wd/o Santosh Mahakal
Age - 40 years, Occ - nil,
R/o Durga Nagar, Tq. Nandura,
Dist. Buldhana.
2. Pooja Santosh Mahakal,
Age 21 years, Occ- Student,
R/o Durga Nagar, Tq. Nandura,
Dist. Buldhana.
3. Shubham Santosh Mahakal,
Age 18 years, Occ - Student,
R/o Durga Nagar, Tq. Nandura,
Dist. Buldhana.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Buldhana,
Near Jaistamb Chowk, Buldhana,
Tq. and Dist. Buldhana.
2. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana, Near
Jaistamb-Chowk, Buldhana,
Tq. and Dist. Buldhana.
3. Block Development Officer,
Panchayat-Samiti Nandura,
Tq. Nandura, Dist. Buldhana.
4. Block Education Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Nandura,
Tq. Nandura, Dist. Buldhana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for petitioners
Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Advocate for respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:52:25 :::
wp3324.15.odt
2
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 14.06.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioners challenge the orders of the
respondent - Zilla Parishad dated 10.11.2010 and 27.4.2015 seeking the
recovery of Rs.67,835/ and Rs.82,224/- in view of the enquiry reports
dated 23.10.2010 and 28.3.2015.
The husband of the petitioner no.1 and the father of the
petitioner nos.2 and 3 was working as a Headmaster in the school run by
the Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. While working as a Headmaster, the
husband of the petitioner no.1 committed suicide on 15.2.2010. It is the
case of the petitioners that the husband of the petitioner no.1 was
harassed by the Management of the school and certain other employees
of the Panchayat Samiti. After the death of the husband of the petitioner
no.1, an enquiry was conducted in respect of the complaints made against
the husband of the petitioner no.1 by certain other employees on
23.10.2010. In the enquiry it was found that though the husband of the
petitioner no.1 had constructed the compound wall of the school and had
made the necessary repairs in the school, the receipts pertaining to the
construction were not available on record. Since certain entries in regard
to the expenses were not made, the Extension Officer of the Panchayat
wp3324.15.odt
Samiti held that an amount of Rs.67,835/- was liable to be recovered
from the pensionary benefits payable to the husband of the petitioner
no.1. The petitioners made a complaint in regard to the harassment of the
husband of the petitioner no.1 and the wrongful recovery before the Lok-
Ayukta. The Lok-Ayukta directed further enquiry in the matter. After the
second enquiry, an amount of Rs.82,224/- was sought to be recovered
from the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the said order in the
instant petition.
Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the Zilla Parishad is not entitled to recover the amount of
Rs.67,835/- and Rs.82,224/- from the petitioners. It is submitted that a
finding is not recorded in the enquiry conducted in the matter of the
complaints made against the husband of the petitioner no.1 that he had
not actually utilized the amounts towards the construction of the wall,
purchase of sports material etc. and the husband of the petitioner no.1
was responsible as the receipts pertaining to the expenses were not found
on record. It is submitted that a case of misutilization of funds could have
been made out against the husband of the petitioner no.1 only if the
amount received by the school towards the construction and purchase of
material was not utilized by the husband of the petitioner no.1. It is
submitted that a finding is not recorded either in the first or the second
wp3324.15.odt
enquiry report that the construction was not made or the material was
not purchased. It is submitted that merely because the receipts were not
to be found on record, the recovery of huge amount of Rs.67,835/- and
Rs.82,224/- could not have been sought from the petitioners, specially
after the death of the husband of the petitioner no.1.
Mrs. Jachak, the learned Counsel for the respondent - Zilla
Parishad has supported the action of the Zilla Parishad. It is submitted
that since several complaints were made by the employees of the school
against the husband of the petitioner no.1 in which he was working, an
enquiry was conducted and in the said enquiry, it was found that the
necessary receipts pertaining to the expenses made for the construction
and purchases were not available. It is submitted that since some of the
entries were rough entries and the receipts were not available on record,
after making a due enquiry, the respondents have rightly sought to
recover a sum of Rs.67,835/- and Rs.82,224/- from the petitioners. It is
submitted that an amount of Rs.67,835/- is already recovered from the
amount that was liable to be paid to the petitioners towards the
retirement dues payable to the husband of the petitioner no.1 and an
amount of Rs.82,224/- is yet to be recovered. The learned Counsel sought
for the dismissal of the writ petition.
wp3324.15.odt
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the enquiry reports, we find that it would be necessary to
quash and set aside the part of the recovery, i.e., sought to be made
against the petitioners. The husband of the petitioner no.1 was admittedly
working as the Headmaster of the school run by the Zilla Parishad. Since
certain complaints were received against the Headmaster, the Zilla
Parishad decided to conduct an enquiry in the matter of the complaints.
In the meanwhile, the husband of the petitioner no.1 committed suicide
on 15.2.2010. We are not considering in this writ petition whether the
husband of the petitioner no.1 committed suicide because he was
harassed by the Management and certain Members of the Panchayat
Samiti or whether he committed suicide because of the allegations made
against him. Be that as it may, without issuing notice to the petitioners an
enquiry was conducted in the matter of the complaints against the
husband of the petitioner no.1 after his death. The Enquiry Officer has
not recorded a finding that the husband of the petitioner no.1 had
misappropriated the amount or had not utilized the amount that was
sanctioned for the purpose of construction or purchase of material. A
finding is recorded in the enquiry report that the receipts pertaining to
the construction and purchase of the material were not available on
record. Such a finding is recorded in both the enquiries that are
wp3324.15.odt
conducted in the matter of the complaints against the husband of the
petitioner no.1 in the year 2010 and 2015. In the absence of any finding
of misappropriation or misutilization of the funds, we do not find that the
respondents were justified in seeking the recovery of the amount of
Rs.67,835/- and Rs.82,224/- from the petitioners. An amount of
Rs.67,835/- is already recovered from the retiral dues that were payable
to the husband of the petitioner no.1. Since there is no finding in the
enquiry reports in regard to the actual loss being caused to the Zilla
Parishad due to the negligence on the part of the husband of the
petitioner no.1 in not properly maintaining the record pertaining to the
expenses, the respondents cannot be permitted to recover the amount of
Rs.67,835/- and Rs.82,224/- from the petitioners. The recovery could
have been made by the Zilla Parishad only if a finding in regard to the
loss caused to the Zilla Parishad by the husband of the petitioner no.1
was recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the two enquiries. The impugned
orders are clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.67,835/-, i.e.,
recovered from the retiral dues payable to the husband of the petitioner
no.1, to the petitioners, within two months.
wp3324.15.odt
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
