Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 792 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Raghubir Thakur

2010-04-16

KISHORE K.MANDAL, SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.2.2006 (Annexure-7), passed by the Central Administrative tribunal, Patna Bench, in O. A. No.43 of 2002 (Raghubir Thakur Vs. Union of India and others), whereby the original application preferred by respondent no.1 herein has been allowed with the liberty to the authorities (writ petitioner herein) to institute a civil suit for realisation of the dues from respondent no.1. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was in the services of the indian Railways and was posted at Muzaffarpur at the relevant point of time. He proceeded on authorised leave with effect from 21.8.1982, and had ultimately reported for duties on 21.2.1989. He was on joining posted at Barauni. In the meantime, departmental proceeding was initiated against him for remaining on unauthorised leave beyond the period of sanctioned leave. The learned enquiry officer submitted his report dated 23.6.1993, exonerating the petitioner with respect to his alleged unauthorised absence, which was accepted by the learned disciplinary authority. 3. He continued to be in occupation of the Government accommodation at Muzaffarpur. The authorities proceeded to realise penal rent for unauthorised occupation of the Government accommodation at Muzaffarpur for the period after his transfer to barauni. He superannuated from the services of the Indian Railway on 28.2.1995. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid O. A. No.43 of 2002, which has been allowed in full and the authorities have been given the liberty to institute a suit for realisation of the dues. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. On the own showing of the petitioner, the learned enquiry officer has submitted its report which was duly accepted by the learned disciplinary authority, exonerating respondent no.1 for his alleged unauthorised absence from 21.8.1982 to 20.2.1989. The order attained finality. In other words, no punishment can be imposed on respondent no.1 for his absence for the said period. However, the authorities would be entitled to adjust the said period as per the Leave Rules, which cannot be treated as punishment. In other words, the authorities shall be entitled to adjust the leave due to respondent no.1 to the extent of permissible limit. He can be deprived of his salary for the balance period. However, the authorities would be entitled to adjust the said period as per the Leave Rules, which cannot be treated as punishment. In other words, the authorities shall be entitled to adjust the leave due to respondent no.1 to the extent of permissible limit. He can be deprived of his salary for the balance period. This also does not preclude the authorities from passing appropriate orders for realisation of rent for unauthorised occupation of Government accommodation as per the Rules, which is not by way of punishment. The period of unauthorised occupation of the quarter after the transfer of respondent no.1 from Muzaffarpur to Barauni shall also entail civil consequences for unauthorised occupation of the quarter as per the rules in force and the established procedure. The Tribunal has erred in concluding that the authorities are required to institute a suit for realisation of the penal rent, inter alia, for the reason that it is governed by Rules and administrative instructions. 5. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The order of the tribunal dated 15.2.2006 (Annexure- 7), is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to adjust the dues from the pensionary benefits admissible to respondent no1. The petitioner may realise the dues in instalments.