The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC) No.573 of 2004 Budu Meher …. 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 Rs.24,752/- has been deposited in the GPF account of the petitioner. It is // 2 // further submitted that instead of responding to the notice No.3182 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 : to maintain “That this respondent reply to the averments made in paras-6.1 to 6.10 in toto that the respondent no.3 has the Provident Fund been authorized Accounts of the employees of Aided Educational Institutions, taken over High School, & 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 (D.D.Os.) are deposited through the State Treasuries by way of transfer credit to Head of accounts “8009-State Provident Fund-60-other provident fund-103-other miscellaneous provident Funds-9913770-provident fund of employees of Aided Educational Institutions. Advance from the GPF A/c of subscriber is being sanctioned by the concerned Head of Office or Head of Department as the case may be. After drawal of advance by the concerned D.D.O. through the the Treasury Officer after Treasury/Sub-Treasury, compilation of monthly accounts sends the paid vouchers along with Teasury Schedule to the office of the respondent no.3. On receipt of Form-II schedules (statement 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 withdrawal of advances from the G.P.F. Accounts) along with Treasury Schedule from the Treasuries, the deposits and withdrawals are credited and debited respectively from the concerned G.P.F. Accounts in course of compilation of Account & Account Slips issued in favour of the individual subscriber the deposits showing of Page 2 of 5 // 3 // indicating their interest accrued thereon. in the deposits, withdrawals and to sanction That the respondent respectfully submits that being the Controller of Accounts, I have no role to play in of GPF regard advance/withdrawal to a subscriber. It is the prime duty of the sanctioning authority to calculate the actual amount standing at the credit of subscriber prior to sanction of GPF advance taking into account the last annual account slip issued by the respondent no.3 payment and That this respondent respectfully submitted that the matter relating to forged drawal of the petitioner has been reported to the Superintendent of Police, Bolangir vide letter no.244/CA dated 13.01.2004 (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-A/3). the look out of respondent no.3 That this respondent respectfully submitted that it is not to sanction/disburse the amount of advance from the GPF account of a subscriber. The Sanctioning Authority (the respondent no.4) and the DDO (the respondent no.5) in instant case are responsible to examine the the genuineness of the application submitted for sanction of advance/withdrawal the applicant before sanction. The responsibility of disbursement of G.P.F. advance/withdrawal to the concerned employee lies on the hands of the B.D.O., respondent no.5.” from G.P.F. account by 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 Asst. Teacher, Rugudipalli (L) Primary School, Rugudipalli retired on 31.03.2006. During his tenure under the administrative control of Block Development Officer, Deogaon, was taken Temporary GPF advance of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand) only from his GPF Account No.70960 PS, vide Bill No.26 dated 03.05.1999 for Rs.30,000/-, Bill No.224 dated 20.11.2000 for Rs.50,000/- and Bill No.88 dated 17.07.2001 for Rs.50,000/- 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 Page 3 of 5 // 4 // advance amount are annexed herewith as Annexure-A/4 and B/4 respectively. 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.24,752 (Rupees twenty four thousand seven hundred the accumulation of funds available in his GPF account and accordingly suggested recovery of the excess drawal as per the Appendix-VI under Annexure-1 of the writ petition. two) only than fifty instructed 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 the Sub-Inspector of Schools concerned to recovery the excess amount paid to the petitioner along with other teachers from their salary. The Block Development Officer, Deogaon also vide notice no.3182 dated 27.12.2003 directed the petitioner to deposit the excess payment of Rs.24,752/- 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.” 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.24,752/- 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.24,752/- deposited in the petitioner’s GPF account. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 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 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