DEVINDER GUPTA ( 1 ) THE petition has sought the quashing of order annexure P-13 dated December 27,1991 passed by respondent No. 2 by which penalty of reimbursement of pay and allowance for a period often months was imposed upon the petitioner due to the alleged server default during study leave. In addition orders annexures P-19 and P-21 and dated 21. 4. 1993 and 24. 8. 1994 dismissing statutory complaint and mercy petition are also under challenge. ( 2 ) PETITIONER while posted at Dehradun made an application for grant of two years study leave for pursuing Post-graduate course in Psychology (Behavioural Science) at D. A. V College, Dehradun. Study leave was granted from October 29,1989 to Septemr 30,1991 under the provisions of Army Instruction No. 42/82 and 16/92 and Army Order No. 11/97 through Army Headquarter s letters dated march29,1989 and October 1,1989. It is the petitioner s case that after getting his study leave sanctioned he joined DAV College. Dehradun and had been submitting six monthly feed-back to the concerned authority in the prescribed proforma, as required under the Rules. For post-graduate course in behavioural Science it was mandatory to pursue a Bridge course for those students who had completed their graduation in two years prior to 1989, as per the regulations of Hem Vati Nandan Bahaguna, (Garhwal) University, Since the petitioner had also completed his graduation in two years prior to 1989, he was also required to clear the mandatory Bridge course for pursuing further studies in Behavioural Science. Petitioner attended the classes regularly with 100% attendance. Having worked hard the petitioner topped the University in Bridge course securing 82% marks. The study leave granted to the petitioner, thus, exhausted in clearing the first year of bahevioural Course. Petitioner accordingly submitted an application on June 25,1991 to respondent No. 2 intimating the said fact and mentioning therein that admission in M. A. would take place in first week of August 1991 and examination would be conducted in April 1992. Petitioner also stated that he could not avail annual leave for 1989, therefore, in terms of para 2 (d) of Army Order 11/87, annual leave with effect from October 01, 1991 to November 29, 1991 be granted to him to enable him to attend regular classes and secure a minimum of 60% attendance. Petitioner also stated that he could not avail annual leave for 1989, therefore, in terms of para 2 (d) of Army Order 11/87, annual leave with effect from October 01, 1991 to November 29, 1991 be granted to him to enable him to attend regular classes and secure a minimum of 60% attendance. He also stated that he would be in a position to complete the course in the subsequent year because the College was closed for 20 days due to winter vacations in December 1991 and for preparation of study with effect from March for the ensuing examinations to be held in April, 1992. He stated that during the said current year examinations were postponed due to elections. ( 3 ) ON receipt of the above application respondent No. 2 raised an objection that the petitioner was granted 23 months study leave to pursue a course of Behavioural Science, but he has appeared in Bridge Course in 1990, which implied that the petitioner did not join M. A. Psychology for which study leave had been obtained, the petitioner was required to explain the reason that why he did not commence his study in M. A. Psychology for which study leave had been granted and why the petitioner did not inform about attending the Bridge course. ( 4 ) IT is the petitioner s case that a reply was submitted on September 21, 1991 clarifying the position stating that after grant of 23 months study leave form 19th October 1989 to 30th September, 1991 he could not join first year of behavioural Science since Bridge course was mandatory as per the University s regulation. There was also no need to have sent prior intimation of having joined Bridge course since he was pursuing the requisite study in Behavioural Science and had also duly intimated the result thereof that he had secured 82% marks in Behavioural Science topping the University. Despite this clarification the petitioner received another letter on November 19, 1991 stating that the reason assigned in joining Bridge course was not found satisfactory. Two years study leave was granted only for M. A. Degree course in Behavioural Science on the basis of a certificate from D. A. V. College. Despite this clarification the petitioner received another letter on November 19, 1991 stating that the reason assigned in joining Bridge course was not found satisfactory. Two years study leave was granted only for M. A. Degree course in Behavioural Science on the basis of a certificate from D. A. V. College. The petitioner did not make any effort to inform the Department during two years that Bridge course was mandatory or that it would take three years to obtain M. A. Degree. Petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be penalised for mis-using one year s study leave. Though the petitioner submitted his reply supported with documents but respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass the impugned order, which is new under challenge as arbitrary and contrary to rules in addition to other grounds as enumerated in para 22 of the petition. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT have opposed the petition stating that the petitioner was supposed to join Post Graduate study whereas he in his first year joined the Bridge course, which was introduced as mandatory prerequisite for doing M. A. in the University. Petitioner did not at any stage inform the respondents that he had not joined Post Graduate Degree course in Bahavioural Science for which he had been granted study leave. Petitioner, thus, severely defaulted in his studies and violated relevant rules. Before imposing penalty the petitioner was asked to explain the circumstances for violating the Rules, which were in vague, and when his explanation was not found satisfactory, penalty was imposed and the petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 84,369. 00, which was deducted from his pay and allowances. ( 6 ) WE have heard counsel for the parties and been taken through the record. ( 7 ) THE relevant provisions under which penalty has been imposed ion the petitioner is para 21 of Army Order No. 11/87, which reads: "21. Premature abandonment of study leave by the officer/severe Default during studies/failure to serve during the compulsory liability period (After availing study leave) may entail reimbursement of proportion cost to the Government i. e. leave salary and study allowance. "the aforementioned Army Order states that severe default during study may entail reimbursement of proportionate cost to the Government. The question in this case would be as to whether there has been severe default during studies or not. "the aforementioned Army Order states that severe default during study may entail reimbursement of proportionate cost to the Government. The question in this case would be as to whether there has been severe default during studies or not. The facts, as noticed above and which certain dispute are that the study leave had been granted to the petitioner to pursue Post-Graduate studies in Behavioural Science, which according to the order of santion of study leave had to be pursued by the petitioner in D. A. V. College, Dehradun. It is also not in dispute that Hem Vati Nandan Bahuguna, (Garhwal) University, Sri Nagar (Garh well is the affiliated. Respondents have not disputed the fact that under the relevant regulations of the University it was mandatory for nay student who had done graduation in two years prior to 1989 to qualify a Bridge course examination to enable him to do post-graduation in Psychology. (Behavior Science ). Relevant notification of Hem Vati Nandan Bahuguna University reads: "according to the National Education Policy 1986, and other Universities no admission will take place during the current Session 1989-90 in Post Graduate (Previous) Classes of the affiated/attached colleges of this University. From the next 1990-91 session only those candidates will be eligible for admission in Post- graduate (Previous) Classes years duration or have qualified Bridge Course Examination after two years duration course. The Bridge Course will be applicable during 1990-91 Session in the affiliated/ attached colleges of this University . " ( 8 ) IN this case it was mandatory for the petitioner, who for the knowledge of respondent No. 2 had done graduation prior to 1989 in two years, to qualify a Bridge course examination, to enable him to get admission to the requisite post-graduate studies in Psychology (Behavioural Science), it cannot be said that the petitioner had voluntarily committed severe default during studies. Words severe Default during studies" in para 21 of the Army Order have to be construed liberally. Before imposing penalty it was necessary to come to a conclusion that it was due to the petitioner s act that severe default was commited by him. This admittedly was not the position. Words severe Default during studies" in para 21 of the Army Order have to be construed liberally. Before imposing penalty it was necessary to come to a conclusion that it was due to the petitioner s act that severe default was commited by him. This admittedly was not the position. It was due to the University s requirement that mandatory Bridge course had to be undertaken by the petitioner, which he duly completed and duly intimated the result thereof to respondent No. 2 No objection was raised at the time when due intimation was given by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 that he had qualified the requisite Bridge course, topping the University. It is also not in dispute that during the past two years the petitioner completed his post-graduation in Behavioural Science. ( 9 ) IN circumstances aforementioned the respondents decision that a severe default was committed by the petitioner in study leave cannot be sustained in law. Such a decision was taken by the respondents by construing the words "severe Default". In the facts and circumstances, respondents ought to have accepted petitioner s explanation, which was plausible one. petitioner had duly apprised the respondents of the mandatory requirement of the University that in order to do post- graduation in Behavioural Science, it was mendatory for him to have undergone the Bridge course, which position was not disputed. Consequently impugned order imposing penalty of recovery of Rs. 84,369. 00 from the petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY the respondents are directed to refund the amount within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ order. Writ petition stands disposed of.