TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of her husband and initially she was allowed 90 % provisional pension and gratuity. At subsequent stage, final pension and gratuity was authorised by the Accountant General , Bihar, Patna and thereafter Respondent no.5/ Superintendent of Police, Nalanda vide Memo No.1984 dated 27.10.2006 asked the Treasury Officer, Nalanda to deduct Rs.99,858/- from the gratuity amount and thereafter pay the balance amount to the petitioner. In compliance of the order issued by the Respondent no.5/ Superintendent of Police, Nalanda after deducting Rs.99,858/- from the gratuity amount , balance amount was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner after having come to know regarding deduction of Rs.99,858/- from the gratuity amount represented before Responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny opportunity of hearing the Respondent no.5 without ascertaining the fact that the husband of the petitioner was already on duty in illegal manner passed order for deducting the amount of Rs.99, 858/- on the plea that earlier salary was paid to the petitioner's husband, whereas he was shown absent for the said period. It was submitted that after the death of her husband on such unsustainable plea, no deduction order was required to be passed in the year 2006, whereas the death of her husband had occurred on 27.12.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that no recovery was required to be made without affording any opportunity of hearing has referred to number of case law reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 857 (Ram Aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the husband of the petitioner. In the present writ petition, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent nos.1 to 5. However, on record, an affidavit shown by the Dy. Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Nalanda purported to be filed on behalf of Respondent no.6 is available. Respondents have not controverted the statement made in the writ petition specifically in its paragraph-8 that the husband of the petitioner was on duty in Police Line, Nalanda between the period for which recovery order has been passed. Fact remains that the recovery of Rs.99,858/- was directed to be made from the gratuity amount of husband of the petitioner, who died in harness. The death of the husband of the petitioner had occurred on 27.12.200....