Rs 5 lakh penalty quashed: Calcutta High Court saves retired official from ‘harsh’ payback

“The petitioner had already retired on November 30, 2024, and pension is now the sole source of his livelihood and recovery of the interest amount at this stage may be harsh and inappropriate,” the court said on April 2.

The order noted that it was not a case of any “negligent and reckless” exercise of quasi-judicial powers in violation of the statutory provisions and guidelines. The bench added that the “procedural lapses, if any, are not smeared with any intent to avail undue benefit or to heckle and harass the teachers“.

Background

The matter originated from a plea filed by Veronica Bharati Bar, a teacher seeking the disbursement of arrear salary for the period between August 19, 2017, and October 31, 2021. The case centred on a delay in the formal approval of her teacher appointment, which resulted in the non-payment of her salary for over four years.

On March 15, 2022, a single judge ordered the state to pay the arrears at 12 per cent interest. The judge directed that this interest be recovered from the salary of the concerned District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Kolkata, citing illegal/arbitrary action” that caused the delay. 

The appellant, Sushanta Kumar Panda, who held the post during part of the period in question, challenged this recovery order.

Arguments of parties

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Saikat Banerjee submitted that the petitioner, as a state functionary, was working as the additional district inspector of schools in Ranaghat at the relevant time.

He argued that the petitioner did not get any opportunity to furnish his explanation regarding the delay towards disbursement as alleged.

Advocate Sandip Kr De, who represented the school authorities, opposed the petitioner’s claim and submitted that all relevant documents relating to approval of the teachers were submitted way back on September 9, 2017, and even after relentless persuasion, the appellant took no steps and as such school was constrained to prefer the petition in the year 2021.

Court’s findings

• Substance in the argument of advocate Banerjee that the issue regarding approval of appointment of the teachers originated in the year 2016 and was settled upon disbursement of the arrear claim with interest on March 15, 2022.
• During the relevant period, four incumbents, including the petitioner, held the post of district inspector of schools, Kolkata, and the delay cannot solely be attributed to the appellant.
• In the order of July 30, 2021, the principal secretary did not pass any direction for the recovery of the interest amount from the petitioner, but directed the school to take appropriate steps upon issuing a show cause.

• Admittedly, even after submissions of a reply to the show cause on September 22, 2021, the school did not take any follow-up steps, and in the midst thereof, the petitioner retired on November 30, 2024.
• Such action on the part of state authorities speaks of their reluctance to recover an interest amount of about Rs 5 lakh from the petitioner.
• A period was lost due to the pandemic from March 2020.
• There is also no material on record to establish any misrepresentation or fraud.