Allahabad High Court
Ramashray vs U.P. Forest Corporation, Lko. Thru. ... on 20 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:76557
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 9230 of 2025
Ramashray
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.P. Forest Corporation, Lko. Thru. Managing Director And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Rishabh Tripathi
Court No. - 18
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to correct the description of respondent no. 4, during course of the day.
Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the contention aforesaid.
In view of the aforesaid, the prayer is allowed, counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the description of respondent no. 4, during course of the day.
Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the Departmental Logging Manager, U.P. Forest Corporation Najibabad, Bijnor, whereby, on the basis of an Audit objection, some part of leave encashment has been withheld.
The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation has been retied on 30.09.2020 and he kept on approaching the respondents for payment of retiral dues and ultimately, some of the retiral dues have been paid, except apart the leave encashment amounting Rs.5,20,903/-.
He submitted that after passing of about five years, the order was passed by the respondent no. 4 while showing the reasons on a representation made by the petitioner, which is apparent that some part of the payment of leave encashment has been withheld because there were certain audit objection against the petitioner during his period of service.
He argued that prior to his retirement, no chargesheet has ever been served upon the petitioner and the case of respondent corporation is that there are certain audit objection and on the basis of the same only, the amount of the leave encashment has been stopped to be paid to the petitioner. He submitted that no enquiry has been instituted uptill date. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on a judgment rendered in the case of Ram Sewak Gupta Versus State of U.P. and Others reported in 2015(33) LCD 940 and has referred paragraph nos. 17 & 18 of the aforesaid judgment, which are extracted as under:-
"17. It is well established that audit report cannot be used as substantive evidence of the genuineness or bonafide nature of the transactions referred to in the accounts. As has been held by this Court in the case of Dilip Singh Rana v. State of U.P., reported in 1993 (7) SLR 706, audit is only official examination of the accounts in order to make sure that the accounts have been properly maintained according to prescribed mode and further that audit report is a staternent of facts pertaining to the maintenance of accounts coupled with the opinion of the auditor and thus it can only give rise to reasonable suspicion of commission of a wrong. Merely on the basis of said audit report without the charge of causing loss being established in a full-fledged departmental inquiry, no recovery of alleged loss caused to the State Exchequer can be made.
18. In similar circumstances, recovery sought to be made from the gratuity of a retired government employee on the basis of some audit report was not approved by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Dixit v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2006 (110) FLR 101."
Referring to the aforesaid, he submitted that withholding the retirement dues on the basis of an audit report, without any departmental inquiry, is impermissible under the law. It is submitted that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered with the ratio of the judgment abovesaid, therefore, submission is that the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 may be quashed and the competent authority may be directed to make payment of the rest of the leave encashment which was withheld by respondent no. 4 within a stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the contentions and submitted that because of the act of the petitioner, there was loss of the public exchequer, as is evident from the audit objection report. He submitted that considering the same and in the interest of department, the representation of the petitioner was decided, while observing that the rest part of the leave encashment cannot be paid to the petitioner because the amount of Rs. 5,20,903/- has been shown as loss in the audit report, therefore, submission is that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the impugned order has rightly been passed.
Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it emerges that the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 30.09.2020 and thereafter, he sought the post retiral dues, which could not paid to the petitioner, since last five years, because of the reasons mentioned in the order dated 09.07.2025, being audit objection, which shows the loss, occurred to the department, amounting Rs. 5,20,903/-.
While examining the impugned order, it is apparent that on the basis of audit objection, that too after the retirement, the amount of post retiral dues i.e. some part of the leave encashment has been withheld. It is an admitted fact between the parties that no inquiry has ever been contemplated regarding the loss incurred upon the department and the audit objection is the sole basis for passing the order dated 09.07.2025, withholding the amount of leave encashment to the petitioner.
This Court is aware of the settled proposition of law as rendered in the case of Ram Sewak Gupta(supra), wherein, it is held that for the loss incurred upon the department, no recovery can be done, solely based on the audit objection, more so, when no departmental inquiry has been done.
Consequently, the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Departmental Logging Manager, U.P. Forest Corporation, Najibabad is unsustainable, thus, the same is hereby quashed.
It is provided that the respondents shall pay the amount of leave encashment of Rs. 5,20,903/- along with the interest payable upon the same, to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks.
With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is hereby allowed.
(Shree Prakash Singh,J.) November 20, 2025 Mayank