Motilal Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7391 MP

                                                                           1                            WP-24159-2021
                                             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                      WP No. 24159 of 2021
                                                 (MOTILAL DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                     1
                                     Jabalpur, Dated : 15-11-2021
                                           Shri Atul Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                           Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

(I). Petitioner is praying for quashing of the

recovery and interest amount. As they belongs to Class III cadre.

(II). This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents/authority to refund the interest amount of Rs.6,63,425=00/-, deposited by the petitioner. And direct the respondents to release the full Pension to the petitioner.

(III). An identical case of this Hon'ble Court interfered and granted the benefits to the petitioner.

The petitioner also wants similar relief.

(IV). That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

(V). Cost of the petition is also awarded.

I t is pointed that the petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of March, 2021 and thereafter the authorities while calculating the post retiral benefits of the petitioner has issued a notice pointing out recovery amount of Rs.15,39,411=00/- alongwith interest. The principal amount is Rs.8,75,986=00/- and interest amount of Rs.6,63,425=00/-. The recovery is for the excess payment of adhoc entries in

Signature Not Verified salaries to the petitioner in the year 2005, for which the petitioner is not at all SAN

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.11.17 09:46:18 IST 2 WP-24159-2021 responsible.

The aforesaid aspect was considered by this court in the case of Rajendra Bhawsar Vs. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No.826/2017, vide order dated 13.9.2017, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.120/2018, (State of M.P. and another Vs. Rajendra Bhawsar), vide order dated 6.8.2018, wherein it is held by this

Court that the respondents are not liable to recover the interest amount from the petitioner.

I t is pointed out that written undertaking has been submitted by the petitioner on 25.10.2021, (Ann. P-3) to the effect that the petitioner be exempted from depositing the interest amount. It is argued that the post retiral benefits of the petitioner have not been settled and the principal amount be recovered from the post retiral benefit of the petitioner and the remaining amount be paid to the petitioner.

Co uns el appearing for the State although has vehemently opposed the prayer pointing out the fact that it is only a show cause notice which is put to challenge in the petition against which the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC, page 28. I t is further contended that the petitioner may file a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice alongwith the judgments passed by this Court in the case of State of M.P. and another Vs. Rajendra Bhawsar (supra) for redressal of his grievance.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is seen that the controversy involved regarding imposing interest on the petitioner is already put to rest by this Court in the case of Rajendra Bhawsar Vs. State of M.P. and others (supra), which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.120/2018, (State of M.P. and another Vs. Rajendra Bhawsar), vide Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.11.17 09:46:18 IST 3 WP-24159-2021 order dated 06.08.2018.

In these circumstances, the authorities are not having any authority to recover the interest from the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner has stated before this Court that the petitioner is willing to deposit the principal amount and has submitted a written undertaking before the authorities for the same, which is annexed in the petition. In the case of Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (supra) it was held as under :-

13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court th a t ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show- cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State

Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh, Special Director vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa vs. Divisional Commissioner, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge- sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply t o the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.11.17 09:46:18 IST 4 WP-24159-2021

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence su ch discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet. In such circumstances, the petition is disposed of in the same terms as that of Rajendra Bhawsar Vs. State of M.P. and others, (supra). If the post retiral benefits of the petitioner are not settled, the recovery of the principal amount be made from the same and if the post retiral benefits are being settled and the payments are being made to the petitioner, then the petitioner is directed to deposit the principal amount to the authorities within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE

AM

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.11.17 09:46:18 IST