The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC) No.572 of 2004 Birendra Barik …. Petitioner Mr. Sachidananda Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa & others …. Mr.B.P. Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate Opp.parties CORAM: JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 03.10.2023 Hybrid Mode 7. 1. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 03.04.2023 has granted time to the petitioner, after a prayer was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking two weeks time to file rejoinder. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner today submits that the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder to the counter. In view of such submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the pleadings are complete. The matter is taken up for hearing and disposal. The writ petition has been registered before this Court on 26.10.2021 after the Original Application was transferred from the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack upon abolition. 3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in response to the Annexure-3 to the writ petition dated 27.12.2003, the petitioner has not denied before the authority by filing any response much less categorical written reply denying the fact that the excess payment of // 2 // Rs.46,771/- has been deposited in the GPF account of the petitioner. It is further submitted that instead of responding to the notice No.3201 dated 27.12.2003, the petitioner has straight away come to the learned Tribunal by filing the O.A. It is also evident from the pleadings before the learned Tribunal in the petition, which was ultimately transferred to this Court after abolition of the learned Tribunal that the petitioner has not responded to the notice issued by the authority. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 before the learned Tribunal on 07.04.2006, the following has been stated : the Provident Fund Accounts of “That in reply to the averments made in paras-6.1 to 6.10 it is stated that the controller of Accounts, Orissa (the respondent no.3) has been authorized to maintain the employees of Aided Educational Institutions, taken over High Schools/ME. Schools and Primary Schools Teachers of the State. The subscription and recovery of advance deducted from the salary of the employees (subscribers) in each month by the concerned drawing and disbursing officer are deposited through the State Treasuries by way of transfer credit to Head of accounts Fund-60-other provident funds-103-other miscellaneous provident Funds-9913770-provident fund of employees of Aided receipt of Form-II Educational schedules the deposits of individual subscribes against their G.P.F. Account numbers) submitted by the D.D.Os along with the salary bills and paid vouchers (bills of withdrawals of advances the from the respondent no.3 complies G.P.F. Treasuries account and issue Annual Account slips in favour of the individual subscriber indicating there in the deposits withdrawals and interest accrued thereon. Institutions. On (statement showing the G.P.F. Accounts) “8009-State Provident from Page 2 of 5 // 3 // That regarding sanction of advance and forged drawal from the G.P.F. account of the applicant the respondent no.3 has no role to play. The B.D.O., Deogaon (the respondent no.5) who is the D.D.O. is responsible for verification of application for advance from the G.P.F.Account of the applicant, sanction of the same, withdrawal and payment to the genuine person. That on receipt of the paid vouchers from the concerned Treasury showing withdrawal of amount (the from the G.P.F. account of the subscriber applicant), there is no alternative on the part of the respondent no.3 but to account for the same amount in the respective G.P.F. account of the applicant.” 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.4-Block Education Officer at paragraphs-5 to 7, the following has been stated : “5. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner is now working as a Headmaster, Ratanpur Upper Primary School, Ratanpur. While the petitioner was working as an Asst. Teacher of Jhinkirmal Primary School under the administrative control of Block Development officer, Deogaon was taken Temporary GPF advance of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty from his GPF Account No.129807 PS, vide Bill No.232 dated 05.12.2001 for Rs.60,000/- and Bill No.85 dated 11.07.2001 for Rs.60,000/- on the ground of his marriage. The copy of the abstract of the statement showing drawal of GPF advance and acquaintance register in token of receipt of the GPF advance amount are annexed herewith as Annexure-A/4 and B/4 respectively. thousand) only 6. That, it is humbly submitted that while the matter stood thus, at the time of audit of accounts of the Block Development Officer, by the Special Audit Party of Panchayati Raj Department, Odisha, the audit party in its report no.19 of 2002-03 reported that the petitioner have drawn excess amount of Rs.46,771/- (Rupees forty six thousand seven hundred seventy one) only than the accumulation of funds available in his GPF account and accordingly suggested recovery Page 3 of 5 // 4 // of the excess drawal as per the Appendix-VI under Annexure-1 of the writ petition. 7. That it is humbly submitted that basing upon the audit report of the Special Audit Party, the Block Development Officer, Deogaon vide office order no.998 dated 01.02.2003 instructed the Sub-Inspector of Schools concerned to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner along with other teachers from their salary. The Block Development Officer, Deogaon also vide notice no.3201 dated 27.12.2003 directed the the excess payment of petitioner Rs.46,771/- and also instructed the Sub-Inspector of Schools concerned to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner along with other teachers from their salary.” to deposit 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submits that though the petitioner never responded to the notice they are at no fault and asks a question where they will go ? 7. In response to the counter, as noted above, the petitioner has chosen not to file any response. The petitioner has not denied that excess amount of Rs.46,771/- was deposited in his GPF account latter on allegedly withdrawn by some persons against whom the criminal cases are pending. 8. In considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner was well within his rights to respond to the notice of recovery giving the details of his liability to pay or stating that he is not liable to pay as far as the excess amount of Rs.46,771/- deposited in the petitioner’s GPF account. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court directing the State Counsel to obtain instruction regarding the present Page 4 of 5 // 5 // status of the vigilance case corresponding to P.S.Case No.103 of 2002. 10. It is fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the petitioners has been arrayed as accused in those cases. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the ultimate result of those pending criminal cases has no bearing on the notice of recovery of the amount deposited in the GPF accounts of the petitioner, in absence of any response of the petitioner to the notice of the recovery as indicated above. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law for redressal of any of his grievances. With the liberty as sought for, the writ petition is disposed of. Gs ( M.S.Sahoo) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 07-Oct-2023 20:45:06 Page 5 of 5