Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the same is ultra vires the powers of respondent No.1, inasmuch as order regarding recovery of the excess amount drawn by the petitioner after a lapse of one year from the date of his retirement cannot be issued. It has been contended that the recovery from the emoluments, being a major penalty, cannot be effected/imposed, that too without conducting a departmental enquiry. It has been further contended that the benefit of upgradation/re-designation as Tax Collector has not been extended to the petitioner on account of any fraud, misrepresentation or mischief attributable to him. It has been contended that, after being redesignated as Tax Collector, the petitioner discharged his duties at the redesignated post for a period of seven years till he was promoted to the post of Tax Inspector in the year 2010 and the petitioner having discharged his duties against the redesignated post for a period exceeding five years, the emoluments drawn for the services rendered at the redesignated post cannot be recovered by the respondents in terms of impugned order. It has been contended that the impugned order is an outcome of illegal exercise of authority.

10) Admittedly, the petitioner has superannuated from service on 30.04.2023 whereas the impugned order of recovery has been issued on 18.04.2024. Therefore, so far as the recovery of excess pay drawn by the petitioner on account of his alleged illegal re-designation/upgradation to the post of Tax Collector made in terms of order dated 27.05.2003 and his promotion to the post of Tax Inspector made vide order dated 14.10.2010 cannot be effected against him, particularly when there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner connived with the concerned officers at the time when he was upgraded/redesignated as Tax Collector or when he was promoted to the post of Tax Inspector.