Delhi High Court
Promila Dagar vs Uoi & Ors. on 21 December, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date Of Decision: 21st December, 2009
+ W.P.(C) No.7564/2009
PROMILA DAGAR .....Petitioner
Through : Mrs.Rekha Palli, Advocate with
Ms.Punam Singh and Ms.Amrita
Prakash, Advocates
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Gaurav Khanna, Advocate for
Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has challenged orders dated
19.11.2004, 24.4.2006, 19.9.2008 and 16.12.2008.
2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states
that the petitioner presses the writ petition only with respect
to the last three orders i.e. the orders dated 24.4.2006,
19.9.2008 and 16.12.2008.
3. Alleging over payments made to one Matadeen
Sharma employed as a cook and one Vishwnath Prasad
employed as a washer man under BSF an inquiry was
conducted in which various persons, one of whom was the
petitioner, were held guilty of negligence. These persons were
the ones who had dealt with the payments released to
Matadeen and Vishwnath Prasad.
4. It may be noted that the inquiry did not find any
mala fide by the persons in the Accounts Department nor was
any act of dishonesty found. The finding is pure and simple of
being negligent while processing the claims of said two
persons.
5. Pending recoveries from Matadeen Sharma and
Vishwnath it was directed that all persons who were negligent
should make good the loss pro rata. From the petitioner
recovery in sum of Rs.6,779/- was ordered.
6. All of a sudden, without putting petitioner to notice
it was directed that instead of recovering Rs.6,779/- from the
petitioner he was required to pay Rs.74,177/-. This amount
was enhanced to Rs.80,929/- vide order dated 19.9.2008.
Representation made by the petitioner has been turned down
vide order dated 16.12.2008.
7. The three impugned orders have to be set aside for
the reason over payment sought to be recovered from the
petitioner was crystallized in sum of Rs.6,779/- and thus
without issuing any show cause notice as to why the same
should not be enhanced, no further recoveries can be effected.
Further, while crystallizing the sum of Rs.6,779/- as the
recovery against the petitioner, proportionate to the guilt of
negligence, recoveries were directed against other officers.
No fresh order has been passed re-apportioning the
negligence.
8. Secondly it is not in dispute that the persons to
whom over payments were made with respect to the amount
in credit in their provident fund account are being disbursed as
pensions and we see no reason why the excess payments be
not recovered from the pensions paid to them. It is not a case
where the recoveries cannot be effected from those who have
received excess payments. It is not a case of an irretrievable
loss vis-à-vis the beneficiaries of the excess payment.
9. The writ petition is allowed.
10. Orders dated 24.4.2006, 19.9.2008 and 16.12.2008
are quashed.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
December 21, 2009
mm
