Writ petition disposed of with liberty to pursue statutory appeal; delay directed to be condoned.

The petitioner, a former employee of the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation, superannuated on 28 February 2015.

After his retirement, the Corporation issued a show-cause notice dated 30 July 2015 concerning an alleged incident of the year 2000 and initiated proceedings relating to an alleged financial irregularity.

The Corporation subsequently withheld or recovered ₹24,78,052 from the petitioner’s retiral benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment.

The recovery was affirmed through Office Order No. 405 dated 31 December 2019, following a Board resolution dated 15 December 2019.

The petitioner challenged the show-cause notice, the Board resolution, the recovery order, and the withholding of his retiral benefits under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Corporation raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had not availed the statutory appellate remedy.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned action of the Corporation

Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to challenge the show-cause notice, the recovery of ₹24,78,052, and the withholding of retiral benefits before the statutory Appellate Authority

Whether the post-retiral proceedings and recovery were legally valid under the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Rules, 1958

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition may ordinarily be declined where an effective statutory alternative remedy, such as an appeal, is available and has not been exhausted.

Without deciding the petitioner’s substantive claims, the Court directed him to invoke the statutory appellate remedy and permitted him to raise all grounds urged in the writ petition before the Appellate Authority.

The Court also directed that any delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

Although the petitioner relied on the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Rules, 1958 and on an earlier decision in CWJC No. 11254 of 2017, the present Court did not determine the scope of those Rules or the legality of the recovery.

The Court did not examine the merits of the petitioner’s objections concerning the post-retiral show-cause notice, the Corporation’s authority to recover money from gratuity or other retiral benefits, or the effect of the earlier decision relied upon by him.

Since the Corporation specifically objected that the statutory appellate remedy had not been used, the Court considered it appropriate to require the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority in the first instance.

To preserve the petitioner’s substantive challenges, the Court granted him 30 days to file the appeal and directed the authority to condone any delay.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the competent Appellate Authority within 30 days and to raise all grounds advanced in the writ petition.

The Appellate Authority was directed to condone any delay in filing the appeal.