Anant Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 924 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                 W.P.(S) No. 7238 of 2011

              Anant Pandey, son of Late Ram Krishan Pandey, resident of
              Indrapuri, Road No.2, Ratu Road, P.O. - Hehal, P.S. - Sukhdeonagar,
              Town and District - Ranchi                   ...      ...    Petitioner
                                        Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Food, Civil Supply
                 and Consumer Affairs, having office at Project Building, P.O. and
                 P.S. - Dhurwa, Town and District - Ranchi
              2. Jharkhand State Food Corporation through its Managing Director,
                 having office at Project Building, P.S. & P.S. - Dhurwa, Town and
                 District - Ranchi
              3. The District Manager, Jharkhand State Food Corporation, Ranchi,
                 Kutchery Road, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. - Kotwali, Town and District -
                 Ranchi
              4. That State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Food and
                 Consumer Affairs Department, having office at Old Secretariat,
                 P.O. and P.S. - Old Secretariat, Town and District - Patna
              5. The Secretary, Food and Consumer Affairs Department,
                 Government of Bihar, having office at Old Secretariat, P.O. and
                 P.S. - Old Secretariat, Town and District - Patna
              6. Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., through its
                 Managing Director, having office at Sone Bhawan, Veerchand
                 Patel Path, Patna - 1
              7. The Managing Director, Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd.,
                 having office at Sone Bhawan, Veerchand Patel Path, Patna - 1.
                                                     ...        ...       Respondents
                                        ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

              For the Petitioner              : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
              For the Resp. No. 1             : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman,
                                                Advocate
              For the Resp. Nos. 4 and 5      : Mr. Binit Chandra, Advocate
              For the Resp. Nos. 2, 3, 6 & 7 : None
                                        ---
07/27.02.2023       Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf
                of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1.

3. Heard Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5.

4. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7.

5. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order contained in Memo No. 1590 dated 24/03/2008 passed by respondent no. 2.

6. As per the impugned order, an amount of Rs. 2,33,964.76 has been held to be recoverable in terms of letter no. 1550 dated 08.03.2003 with interest @18% amounting to Rs. 9,08,904.00 (from

February, 2003 till 24.03.2008 and after deducting Rs. 88,224.00 on account of time bound promotion an amount of Rs. 10,54,644.76 has been found to be recoverable for which 70% pension has been withheld and 324 instalments have been fixed @ Rs.3246 per month and last instalment has been fixed at Rs. 305/- and whereunder 70% pension of the petitioner has been withheld and thereby a sum of Rs. 324 has been directed to be deducted every month from the pension of the petitioner.

Arguments of the Petitioner

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been several round of litigations by the petitioner in connection with the deduction involved in the present case. He submits that the impugned order dated 24.03.2008 has been passed pursuant to order dated 02.07.2007 passed in LPA No. 172 of 2007 by which 70% pension of the petitioner has been withheld. The learned counsel submits that the only legal issue involved in the present case is as to whether any deduction could have been made from the pension of the petitioner without there being any departmental proceedings against the petitioner prior to his retirement or after retirement under Rule 43 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules or under the provisions of Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules. The learned counsel submits that on account of the fact that the pension was sanctioned long back, there has neither been any proceeding for recovery from pension under Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules nor there could have been any such proceeding.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 56 (State of Bihar and Others Vs. Md. Idris Ansari) to submit that whenever any deduction from pension is to be made on account of some misconduct, under such circumstances, a person has to be held guilty in a departmental proceeding. He submits that there being no departmental proceeding in the present case, no deduction could have been made from the pension of the petitioner as Jharkhand Pension Rules contemplates deduction only under Rule 43 and Rule 139 and there is no other provision for making any deduction from the pension.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgement passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in CWJC No. 2020 of 1998 (R) (Annexure- 6 of the writ petition) to submit that under identical circumstances, deduction and recovery made from pension has been set-aside and L.P.A. filed against the same was also dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2000 (Annexure- 7).

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid arguments, the imposition of interest @18% is excessive and has no basis at all. The impugned order does not reflect any circular or any provision which enables the respondents to recover the amount with interest @18%. Arguments of the Respondents

11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that as per the writ petition itself, a letter dated 29.09.1981 was issued to the petitioner while the petitioner was in service asking the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,33,964.76 on account of shortage of foodgrains. Such direction was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC no. 1980 of 1994(R). As per the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court, the order impugned in the writ petition was stayed and it was also directed that the petitioner could file a representation with all material facts for proper appreciation of the matter before the respondents. He submits that in the light of the order passed in the writ petition being CWJC No. 1980 of 1994 (R), the Secretary to the Government, Food, Supplies and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar passed order dated 25.08.1998. As per the said order, the petitioner was found responsible for shortage of wheat and the said order is contained at Annexure- 4 to the writ petition.

12. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 760 of 2002. The relief as prayed for by the petitioner is quoted in the writ petition at paragraph 16 and vide order dated 28.06.2002, the said writ petition was disposed of. The order is contained at Annexure- 9. While referring to the order contained in Annexure- 9, the learned counsel has submitted that it was clearly indicated therein that the entire retiral dues including the difference in arrear of salary payable to the petitioner, shall be

released along with gratuity after making such recovery of amount which the petitioner is liable to pay to the respondents. He submits that there was already a direction for recovery of admissible dues from the pension.

13. The learned counsel further submits that another writ petition was filed by the petitioner being W.P.(S) No. 7702 of 2006 wherein the petitioner had challenged the order dated 19.05.2006 as the respondents had directed to curtail 70% of the pension amount of the petitioner and to adjust the embezzled/ recoverable amount towards shortages of food grains during his service period. He submits that the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.02.2007 with an observation that it was incumbent on the respondents to calculate the amount of all the dues payable to the petitioner and the balance amount recoverable from his pensionary benefits. The Hon'ble writ court also recorded that the petitioner had disputed the calculation/claim and counter-claim which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and accordingly, by the writ order, liberty was given to the petitioner to approach the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar by filing a detailed representation who was to consider and pass a reasoned order specifying the amount which was payable to the petitioner in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 760 of 2002. The said respondent was directed to arrive at the amount of liability against the petitioner with clear break up and the balance amount was payable and was to be adjusted from the petitioner's pensionary benefits. The authority was also to determine the monthly amount of adjustment/number of installments for recovery of the balance amount from the petitioner's pension in accordance with the prescribed rules.

14. The learned counsel submits that the said order was challenged by the petitioner in LPA No. 172 of 2007 which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 02.07.2007 and the Hon'ble Division Bench was of the view that the learned Single Judge had rightly directed the petitioner to approach the Secretary, Food Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar by filing a detailed representation, who in turn, was directed to look into the matter and

determine the liability and also monthly amount of adjustment or number of installments to be recovered from the petitioner's pension.

15. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order having been passed pursuant to order dated 02.07.2007 passed in LPA No. 172 of 2007, it is not open to the petitioner to say that in absence of any proceedings under Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, no adjustment could have been made. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed in terms of the directions passed by this Court and it cannot be said to be an order under Rule 43(b) or under Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules. The learned counsel has also submitted that the order and direction as contained in LPA No. 172 of 2007 has attained finality and accordingly, the order of adjustment has also attained finality.

16. With respect to the interest @ 18%, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no such plea with regard to excessive interest has been taken by the petitioner in the writ petition and therefore, no counter-affidavit with regard to the basis on which rate of interest @18% has been charged, has been brought on record. As a counsel he is not aware as to whether there is any such circular or guideline with regard to payment of interest on the recoverable amount in case of loss of food grains for which the petitioner was held liable and the amount was sought to be recovered.

Findings of this Court

17. It is not in dispute that in the year 1967, the petitioner was initially placed as Supply Inspector in Food, Civil Supplies and Commerce Department Government of Bihar and in the year 1975, the petitioner was placed in Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation as Assistant Godown Manager posted at Ranchi on deputation and he remained there till 1981 and thereafter his services were repatriated to his parent department. Subsequently, the petitioner retired on 30.09.1998.

18. While the petitioner was posted as Assistant Godown Manager under the aforesaid corporation, he was served with a letter dated 12.09.1976 from the office of the Managing Director of the Corporation addressed to all district managers for cleaning/screening

of food grains and during that time, it was alleged that there was some shortage of food grains. The District Godown Manager assessed the shortage of food grain to the tune of Rs.2,33,964.76 and vide letter dated 29.09.1981 (Annexure - 2), the petitioner was asked to deposit the entire amount.

19. The demand was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition being CWJC No. 1980 of 1994 (R) and final order in the writ petition, was passed on 06.03.1995 (Annexure - 3). The grievance of the petitioner was that the letter dated 29.09.1981 was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, vide order dated 06.03.1995, this Court, without going into the merits, dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to pass a fresh speaking order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months and in the meantime, the Annexure - 2 i.e., the letter dated 29.09.1981 was kept in abeyance and petitioner was also granted liberty to file a fresh representation.

20. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 06.03.1995 passed in CWJC No. 1980 of 1994 (R), a fresh order dated 25.08.1998 was passed by the Secretary to the Government, Food Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar and was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.08.1998. By the aforesaid order dated 25.08.1998, three points as raised by the petitioner were considered by the authority. The first point as raised by the petitioner in his representation has been recorded as paragraph no.2 of the order and it was pointed out that there was some double entry and, consequently, the State Food Corporation's representative clarified that the arrear amount against the petitioner was only Rs.2,33,964.76 and this quantification of the arrear was ultimately settled vide paragraph two itself. The second point was relating to the screening of certain quantity of white wheat by stating that screening is done when food grain shows sign of deterioration or indicates existence of foreign matter. The claim of the petitioner was that the entire quantity of screened wheat i.e., 654 quintals 21 kgs and 600 grams was shown against him as due. The stand of the State Food Corporation was recorded in paragraph 5 of the said order recording that there was no

policy for allowing shortages for screening. The said authority ultimately recorded in paragraph 6 and 7 as follows "6. It is apparent that screening will involve loss of foodgrains. The letter from MD instructing the District Managers says: "Some District Managers have brought to the notice of this office that sizeable quantity of foodgrains stocked in various godowns got weevilled due to long storage and have been showing signs of deterioration. Reports have also been received about existence of foreign matters. It is essential to get such stock of foodgrains clearly screened before issue to Fair Price Shop or to the receiving districts as the case may be. The clearning/screening operations generally consist of destacking, weighment before clearing/screening, bagging, stitching and re-weighment, restocking etc. The overall expenditure on all itoms of operations mentioned above should no exceed rupee one per quintal." Weighment before and after screening clearly imply possible loss due to screening. The problem faced by SFC in their 1975 operation envolving a lot of godowns in Ranchi was that loss reported by the Godown Managers was unbelievable high. Therefore a decision was taken not to allow a single gram of foodgrains as loss.

7. The position that since SFC has no guidelines to determine a permissible level of loss for screening, cannot be held perpetually against the petitioner. SFC should evolve a policy in this regard and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till such time collection of dues from Sri Pandey to a limit of monetary equivalent of 533-630 quintals and interest accrued thereon may remain suspended."

The third point which was urged by the petitioner was that the total storage loss was negligible when compared to the huge turnover of food grains he had handled. This plea was also rejected having no validity by stating that the storage loss was calculated batch wise based on shelf life. Thereafter, a letter dated 28.11.1998 was issued to the petitioner by the District Manager holding that the petitioner was responsible for the losses.

21. The petitioner has annexed an order passed in writ petition filed by one A.R Mishra being CWJC No.101 of 1999 (R) disposed of on 08.11.2000. In the said case, the petitioner had prayed for quashing the order dated 23.09.1998 issued by Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Food and Supply Commerce Department by which a direction was issued for payment of the amount to Bihar State Food Corporation. In the said writ order, it has been recorded that the Bihar State Assistant Godown Managers Association had challenged the decision of the Corporation in C.W.J.C No.8097 of 1988 which was disposed of on 08.11.1988 wherein it was held that the Corporation was competent to recover the amount with regard to loss caused to the Corporation in excess of the permissible limit, but it was observed that before fixing liability on the Assistant Godown Manager, principles of natural justice was required to be followed. The said judgement passed in C.W.J.C No.8097 of 1988 was

challenged by the aforesaid Association before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.4980 of 1990 and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 02.04.1993. By referring to the aforesaid SLP, this Court held in CWJC No.101 of 1999 (R) as follows:

"Thus, it settled law that in case of shortage of foodgrains kept in the godown of Corporation, which is in excess of the permissible limit fixed by it, the Assistant Godown Manager has to pay the loss provided an opportunity of hearing is given to him and if it is determined that the loss has occasioned because of his failure and not because of the situation beyond the control of the Assistant Godown Manager."

Ultimately in CWJC No.101 of 1999 (R), this Court found that the impugned order of the said case was passed by the State Government and not by the Corporation and the matter lingered since 1981, when the amount was found due and the petitioner was delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and even not appearing before the authorities concerned and ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed.

22. By relying upon the aforesaid judgement passed in in CWJC No.101 of 1999 (R), the petitioner filed another writ petition being C.W.J.C No.765 of 1999 (R) which was dismissed by recording that the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by the judgment passed in CWJC No.101 of 1999 (R). The order dated 22.01.2001 passed in CWJC No.765 of 1999(R) (Annexure - 8/1) is quoted as under:

"Heard the parties.

This case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 08.11.2000 passed in CWJC No. 101 of 1999 (R).

In that view of the matter, this writ application is dismissed in terms of the order and direction passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ application."

23. Thus, this Court finds that the liability of the petitioner to pay Rs.2,33,964.76 for loss of food grains became final.

24. It further appears that the petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court in W.P.(S) No.760 of 2002 seeking finalization of pension as petitioner was being paid provisional pension only to the extent of 90% and the petitioner also prayed for promotional and consequential relief with interest. The prayer of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 760 of 2002 has been quoted in paragraph 16 of the writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed on 28.06.2002 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. The order dated 28.06.2002 in WPS No.760 of 2002 is quoted as under:

"Heard Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Allam learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar and with their consent this writ application is disposed of by passing the following order.

(1) Respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner for time bound promotion and take final decision within Six weeks from the date of production of copy of this order.

(2) After taking final decision in the matter of time bound promotion, respondents shall calculate the entire retiral dues including the difference in arrears of salary payable to the petitioner and shall released the same alongwith gratuity amount after making such recovery of amount which petitioner is liable to pay the respondents. The retiral dues and other amount as aforesaid shall be released in favour of the petitioner within four months from the date of the decision that shall be taken by the respondents in the matter of time bound promotion of the petitioner.

Needless to say that petitioner shall be entitled to statutory interest on the retrial dues payable to the petitioner."

25. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that a specific direction was passed that the respondents shall calculate the entire retiral dues including the difference in arrears of salary payable to the petitioner and shall release the same along with gratuity amount after making such recovery of amount, which petitioner is liable to pay to the respondents. Thus, this Court finds that in the order dated 28.06.2002, a clear stipulation was made by this Court regarding recovery of the amount which the petitioner was liable to pay to the respondents.

26. The petitioner filed appeal being LPA No. 172 of 2002 which was dismissed vide order dated 02.07.2002 with certain modification. The order dated 02.07.2002 in LPA No.172 of 2002 is quoted as under.

"Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 28.2.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.7702/2006.

After hearing the counsel for the parties we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the petitioner to approach the Secretary, Food Supply & Commerce department, Govt. of Bihar by filing detailed representation who, in turn, was directed to look into the matter and determine the liability and also the monthly amount of adjustment or number of installments to be recovered from the appellant's pension. The said authority was also directed to consider the grievance of the appellant with regard to his claim of interest on the excess amount paid to him.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not approached the Authority till date. We direct that if the appellant files representation, as directed, within three weeks from today then the authority shall take final decision in the matter within six week from the date of receipt of representation.

With the aforesaid modification in the order of learned Single Judge, this appeal is dismissed."

27. This Court while dismissing the appeal clearly observed that the learned Single Judge had rightly directed the petitioner to approach the Secretary, Food Supply and Commerce Department Government of Bihar by filing a representation who, in turn, was directed to look into the matter and determine the liability and also the monthly

amount of adjustment or number of installments to be recovered from the petitioner's pension. The said authority was also directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner with regard to claim of interest on the excess amount paid. At that point of time, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not approached the authority till date and consequently, the order of the writ court was modified only to the extent that the petitioner could approach the authority within a period of 3 weeks and the representation was to be disposed of within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the representation.

28. This Court finds that thereafter vide order dated 19.05.2006, the Deputy Secretary of Food Supply and Commerce Department sanctioned for payment of 30% pension and passed an order under Rule 43(a) withholding pension to the extent of 70%. It was recorded in the said order that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,33,951.76 with interest at the rate of 18% which came to Rs.9,88,984/- and consequently, total amount of Rs.11,42,858.76 was recoverable from the petitioner.

29. Thereafter, at last, the impugned order dated 24.03.2008 has been passed wherein an amount of Rs. 2,33,964.76 has been reiterated to be recoverable on account of shortage of food grains in terms of letter no. 1550 dated 08.03.2003 with interest @18% amounting to Rs.9,08,904.00 (from February 2003 till 24.03.2008 and after deducting Rs. 88,224.00 on account of time bound promotion an amount of Rs. 10,54,644.76 has been found to be recoverable for which 70% pension has been withheld and 324 instalments have been fixed @ Rs.3246 per month and last instalment has been fixed at Rs. 305/- and whereunder 70% pension of the petitioner has been withheld and thereby a sum of Rs. 324 has been directed to be deducted every month from the pension of the petitioner. Consequently, total amount of Rs.11,42,868.76 was recoverable from the petitioner.

30. Upon perusal of the entire records of this case, this Court finds that the order of recovery on account of loss of foodgrains caused by the petitioner was passed as back as on 29.09.1981. Though the said order was challenged in CWJC No.1980 of 1994 (R), but it was not set aside, rather it was merely kept in abeyance pending disposal of the

representation. The representation was disposed of on 29th of August 1998 and all the points raised by the petitioner was considered and ultimately, it was held that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,33,964.74 which was the same amount as mentioned in the letter dated 29.09.1981 and the said order dated 25.8.1998 by which the amount was re-determined was never set aside by this Court. Rather, it appears that the petitioner retired in the year 1998 and certain recoveries were sought to be made from the petitioner and ultimately, after different rounds of litigations, an order dated 28.06.2002 was passed in W.P.(S) No.760 of 2002 clearly stipulating that the post retirement amount to the petitioner would be released upon making recovery of the amount payable by the petitioner. This Court finds that the order of the writ court was under challenge in LPA No. 172 of 2002 and the appeal was dismissed only with the slight modification of timeline regarding filing of the representation. Rather, in the LPA order, it was reiterated that the learned Single Judge had rightly passed the direction regarding recovery.

31. This Court finds that the consequential order dated 24.03.2008 is a detailed order giving all the calculation and the recoverable amount has been directed to be recovered in installments as indicated in the impugned order itself, whose details have been mentioned above. This Court finds that once the entire dues is recovered, there would be no further deduction.

The entire argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no deduction could have been made from the pension of the petitioner and reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 56 (State of Bihar and Others Vs. Md. Idris Ansari) is completely misplaced. The petitioner has also relied upon a judgement passed by this Court passed in writ petition being C.W.J.C No.2020 of 1998 (R) wherein action was sought to be taken under Rule 139 (b) of Bihar Pension Rules, as to why 50% of pension and 100% gratuity be not withheld as during the service period huge loss of food grains had taken place, which showed unsatisfactory service of the petitioner of the said case. This Court held that if the service of an incumbent is not thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension has a right to reduce the amount

as he thinks proper under Rule 139 (b) of the Rules and the procedure for passing such an order has been shown under Rule 139 (c). Consequently, appropriate order under Rule 139 (b) can be passed. This Court also referred to Rule 43 (a) which stipulated for future action of an employee after retirement and that the State had the power to withhold or withdraw pension or any part thereof, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or guilty of misconduct, in future. This Court also referred to Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules and recorded that it comes into play when the employee was in service and on account of certain omission or commission, no proceeding was initiated/ no final order was passed. The State had the power to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules in terms of the said Rules. It was held that the State of Bihar and/or its authorities had no jurisdiction to show cause or initiate any proceeding under Rule 139 (b) and/or Rule 43 (b) of the Rules, in respect of alleged loss of the year 1975-77 against the petitioner. The said judgment of learned Single Judge was subject matter of appeal in LPA No.437 of 1999 (R) (Annexure - 7) and the appeal was dismissed. The aforesaid judgement does not apply to the facts of the present case, as neither any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules is involved in this case, nor any proceeding under Rule 139 of the Pension Rules are involved in the present case. What is sought to be recovered from the petitioner is only the amount which was already quantified and had become final and payable by the petitioner during the service period of the petitioner. The petitioner is to be guided by the various orders which were passed in the various writ petitions/ L.P.A filed by the petitioner.

32. This Court finds that the amount which was recoverable from the petitioner was already determined and had become final during the service period of the petitioner, but it remained unpaid on account of various litigations filed by the petitioner in the High Court. Ultimately, there was also a direction for recovery of the amount even while disposing of the writ petition relating to post retirement benefits. The amount payable by the petitioner which stood crystalized during the service period of the petitioner could have been recovered only from the pension / gratuity on account of his retirement. This Court

finds that the impugned action and order is not a result of any disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to his retirement which was not concluded or initiated in terms of Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules. The impugned action is for recovery of the quantified and payable amount while the petitioner was in service and it was rightly sought to be recovered from the pension.

33. So far as the demand of interest @ 18% per annum is concerned, the petitioner has not raised any grievance in connection with the rate of interest and therefore the respondents had no occasion to respond to any such plea. The petitioner having not raised any such grievance in the writ petition, such plea cannot be entertained and decided only on the basis of oral arguments advanced by the petitioner as such a course of action will amount to denial of adequate opportunity to the respondents. Even during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to any Circular/Decision of the State Government to show that the action of the respondents in demanding interest @18% per annum was contrary to any Circular /Decision of the Sate Government. Accordingly, there is no scope for interference in the rate of interest on the recoverable amount.

34. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this Court finds no merits in this writ petition calling for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

35. This writ petition is hereby dismissed.

36. Interim order, if any, is vacated.

37. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/Pankaj