T.Sudharshan, S/O. Late ... vs Apsrtc, Rep. By Its Managing ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2114 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                WRIT PETITION No.12511 of 2013
ORDER:

Seeking to declare the action of the respondents in

recovering a sum of Rs.2,101/- from the salary of the petitioner

from the month of January, 2013, onwards for clearing a sum of

Rs.1,23,959/-, without issuing any notice to the petitioner-

employee and that too after a lapse of more than five years, as

illegal and arbitrary, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Head Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Ms. Sai Mahitha, learned counsel, representing Sri

Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-

Corporation.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that while

the petitioner was working as ADC under the control of second

respondent, the respondents have started recovering a sum of

Rs.2,101/- per month from his salary from the month of January,

2013, without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity to the

petitioner. When the petitioner has approached the second

respondent in this behalf, he was informed that the above recovery

was in connection with the marriage loan of Rs.40,000/- taken by

one Sri Yousuf Ali, driver E.No.200184 in the year 2001, from the

third respondent recoverable in 60 instalments @ Rs.1,000/- per PK, J 2 WP_12511_2013

month, on the ground that the petitioner stood as a guarantor to

said Yousuf Ali, who was subsequently removed from service before

the said loan amount was cleared. Learned counsel has further

contended that after several approaches by the petitioner, the third

respondent informed him that the above recovery was effected

online without any notice. Hence, the action of the respondents in

recovering amounts from the salary of petitioner, without putting

him on notice is an arbitrary exercise and also violative of

principles of natural justice. When the monthly instalments were

not recovered by the Unit Head under whom the principal borrower

was working, the third respondent ought to have informed the

same to the petitioner. Further, the petitioner cannot be penalized

with interest and penal interest on the outstanding amount.

Learned counsel has further contended that the amounts which

are being recovered from the month of January, 2013, are also hit

by limitation. Therefore, the action of the respondents is not

justified in effecting recovery after the lapse of more than five years

that too without taking any steps against the principal borrower

i.e. Yousuf Ali as his entire service benefits were with the

respondent Corporation. As such, the impugned action of the

respondents is a colourable exercise of power. In support of his

submissions, learned counsel has relied on the unreported PK, J 3 WP_12511_2013

judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No.24332 of 2011 dated

29.06.2011.

4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that

the petitioner stood as surety to one Yousuf Ali, E.No.200184,

driver of Hayath Nagar Depot, for the marriage loan of Rs.40,000/-

obtained by him under Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme (in short

'scheme'), which is recoverable in 60 instalments @ Rs.1,000/- per

month. As the said Yousuf Ali was removed from the services of

the Corporation and the petitioner being the surety to the said

employee, recoveries were effected from the salary of the petitioner

from January, 2013, onwards as per the Rules of the scheme.

Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that when the

principal borrower is removed/retired/dismissed from the services

of the Corporation, as per the Rules of the scheme, the sureties will

be affected for the recovery of the outstanding amounts. Thus,

there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents

in effecting recovery, as the petitioner himself has agreed for the

same through a contractual obligation, which is purely a

commercial contract in nature, as the petitioner stood as a

guarantor and he also gave his consent for the recovery. Hence,

the action of the respondents in recovering the amounts is justified

and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

                                                                  PK, J
                                  4                     WP_12511_2013



5)    This Court has taken note of the submissions made by both

the parties.


6)    A perusal of the material on record discloses that, in the

instant case, admittedly, in the year 2001-2002, the petitioner

stood as a guarantor for the marriage loan taken by said Yousuf Ali

of Rs.40,000/- recoverable in 60 monthly instalments at

Rs.1,000/- per month and the loan amount has to be repaid in its

entirety by the end of 2007. The counter is silent regarding the

details viz., recovery of the loan amount from the principal

borrower, how much loan amount was recovered from the principal

borrower out of Rs.40,000/- and when the principal borrower was

removed from the service of the Corporation, etc. That apart, being

a surety, the recoveries were effected from the petitioner from

January, 2013, i.e. after a period of 11 years, that too without

issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of explanation to the

petitioner, which amounts to violation of principles of natural

justice.

7) The right of the respondent Corporation to recover any

outstanding amount of the loan, as per the law of limitation, would

be extant only for a period of three years thereafter. Similar

situation was dealt with by a learned single Judge of this Court in

W.P. No.24332 of 2011 wherein vide order dated 29.06.2011 the PK, J 5 WP_12511_2013

learned Judge has directed the respondent Corporation to release

the retirement benefits of the petitioner therein in entirety without

withholding any amounts towards the loan advanced to the

5th respondent therein.

8) In view of the above, this Court holds that the action of the

respondents in recovering Rs.2,101/- from the salary of the

petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural

justice.

9) Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents

are directed to refund the amounts recovered from the salary of the

petitioner from the month of January, 2013, as expeditiously as

possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

No costs.

____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 08-09-2023.

sur