Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 205 (ORI)

Kulamani Swain v. Union of India

2003-03-06

B.P.DAS, B.PANIGRAHI

body2003
JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — In this writ petition the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench dated 28th May, 1998 passed in O.A. No.801 of 1995 rejecting the petitioner’s application for appropriate order against the opp.parties for refund of Rs.85,600/- has been challenged. 2. Undisputed fact leading to this writ petition is as follows :- The petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector (Phones) just before his voluntary retirement. He proceeded on long leave on medical ground and thereafter applied for retirement on the ground of his ill-health. The authorities on being satisfied about the genuineness of the ground of indisposition of health allowed him to be superannuated with effect from 30.4.1991. Since the opp.parties did not grant him retiral benefits, the petition¬er, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal in O.A. No.70 of 1993 for releasing his retiral benefits along with interest. The Tribunal, however, found that the opp.parties were justified in not disbursing the retiral benefits before “no due certificate” coold be granted to him. The petitioner, thereafter filed another application in M.A. No. 148 of 1994 claiming for a direction to finalise the contemplated Disciplinary Proceeding and also a further direction to release his retiral benefits. His application was disposed of with a direction to release the provisional pension to the applicant within sixty days. When the Department did not even after such order release the retiral benefits, the petitioner filed another application for appropri¬ate direction and accordingly, provisional pension was fixed. Out of D.C.R.G. and Dearness relief, an amount of Rs.85,600/- was withheld on the ground that from the Audit report it was noticed that the petitioner failed to hand over the complete and full charge to his successor although he had taken certain materials worth Rs. 85,600/- while he was in the office. 3. The opp.parties Telecom Department has filed a copy of the audit report and also a list of materials alleged to have been received by the petitioner showing that the materials worth Rs.85,600/- had not been returned on the date of handing over charge to his successor. A voucher purported to have been issued by the petitioner in token of receipt was also furnished before the Tribunal. 4. The petitioner on the contrary has taken a stand that he had returned those articles to his successor Muralidhar Sahoo under two vouchers dated 20.10.1990 and 8.5.1991. A voucher purported to have been issued by the petitioner in token of receipt was also furnished before the Tribunal. 4. The petitioner on the contrary has taken a stand that he had returned those articles to his successor Muralidhar Sahoo under two vouchers dated 20.10.1990 and 8.5.1991. But the Depart¬ment has deliberately omitted those two documents while fixing up the liability against the petitioner. The Tribunal while dispos¬ing of the case also considered the stand taken by the petition¬er, who, however, was not inclined to place any reliance on the ground that the opp.parties have denied to have received such documents. 5. In course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced a copy of the F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I. and the order in connection there with passed in the Crime No. RC 51 (A) of 1992. The petitioner, his successor Mulaidhar Sahoo, one Gopinath Panda and B.K. Behera were arrayed as the accused. The C.B.I. was in seisin of the fact-situation about the alleged misappropriation committed by the all the accused includ¬ing the present petitioner. The main allegation against the petitioner was that some materials which he was in possession were not handed over to the accused Muralidhar Sahoo. On the other hand, the C.B.I. authorities have taken cognizance of the receipt alleged to have been granted by Muralidhar Sahoo and therefore, they exonerated the present petitioner from the afore¬said charge. The Department has not filed any application before the concerned authorities for impleading other persons as ac¬cused. The stand of the Department is that those two vouchers dated 20.10.1990 and 8.5.1991 by which the petitioner purported to have handed over the materials to his successor do not relate to those materials for which the retiral benefits of the peti¬tioner have been withheld. 6. In this case, it is to be considered whether the peti¬tioner was liable to return the articles worth Rs.85,600/- to the Department. The petitioner claims to have returned those materi¬als to his successor and two valid vouchers were granted by Muralidhar Sahoo. On the other hand, the Department has denied to have received any such vouchers. It is curious to note that the C.B.I. has seized those vouchers from the custody of the Depart¬ment. Therefore, in this background, it is hard to believe the stand taken by the Department. On the other hand, the Department has denied to have received any such vouchers. It is curious to note that the C.B.I. has seized those vouchers from the custody of the Depart¬ment. Therefore, in this background, it is hard to believe the stand taken by the Department. Be that as it may, in case the department has not received the vouchers worth Rs.85,600/- from the petitioner, they ought to have taken action in the Civil Court for realisation of the said amount. 7. Mr. Mohapatra, appearing for the department has submit¬ted that still the time has not run out to realise the amount from the delinquent-petitioner. According to us, the amount has been wrongly withheld from 1991 i.e., from the date of allowing the petitioner to retire on health ground. Had this amount of Rs. 85,600/- been invested in any Nationalised Bank, the amount would have been double, if not more. 8. In the above backdrop of the case we hereby direct opp.parties 1 and 2 to pay at least Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) at the moment within four weeks from date, which shall abide by the result of the suit. The petitioner shall furnish a bond undertaking to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- in case it is held that he shall be liable to refund Rs.85,600/- to opp.party No.1. Opp.parties 1 and 2 are further directed to deposit Rs.1,20,000/- in the civil Court at the time of filing of the suit which shall be invested in any Nationalised Bank in short term deposit and shall be renewed from time to time till disposal of the suit. In the event opp.party No.1 does not prefer to file any suit vindicating its right to realise the amount from the petitioner within eight weeks it shall be construed that they have no claim against the petitioner and the opp.parties 1 and 2 shall pay the balance Rs. 1,20,000/- to the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. B.P. DAS, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.