Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1999 (HP)

Meena Rajput v. State of H. P.

2011-04-04

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 24th September, 2005 whereby the appeal of the petitioner was partly accepted and the penalty reduced to censure and recovery of amount of Rs.1661/- with interest @ 12% per annum was ordered. 2. The petitioner challenged this order on various grounds. Despite various opportunities given to the State no reply has been filed though more than five years have elapsed since the filing of the petition. The charges against the present petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Lecturer, in the Govt. Senior Secondary School, Kandaghat, was that she has claimed LTC/HTC of Rs.422/- in the year 1995, Rs.434/- in the year 1997 and had submitted similar bills for Rs.805/- in the year 2001 for a similar benefit. The stand of the State appears to be that since the husband of the petitioner was serving in the Northern Railways as per the LTC rules she was not entitled to the same. Even accepting that the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner are correct then also this is not a case for initiating disciplinary proceedings. It is nowhere alleged that the petitioner submitted the claim fraudulently or by hiding any fact. If the claim was not payable the same could have been rejected. This is not a ground to initiate departmental proceedings. Mere submission of a wrong claim cannot be equated to a submission of a false claim. It is not the case of the department that the petitioner did not travel but according to the department since the husband of the petitioner was employed with the Northern Railways she as per the LTC rules was not entitled to this amount. Even this fact is disputed by Shri Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner but he submits that his client will have no objection in refunding this amount. 3. I am of the considered view that unnecessary time and money was wasted in carrying out the inquiry against the petitioner. There was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner which would amount to an act unbecoming of a government servant to enable the department to initiate action under the CCS Rules. Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside and the penalty of censure as well as recovery is set-aside. 4. There was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner which would amount to an act unbecoming of a government servant to enable the department to initiate action under the CCS Rules. Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside and the penalty of censure as well as recovery is set-aside. 4. However, in view of the submission made by Shri Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner may deposit the amount, if any, received by her on or before 31.5.2011. In case she does not pay this amount by the said date then she will be liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum. On the petitioner depositing this amount it shall be deemed that she has not been subjected to any punishment with all consequential benefits including benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme, if otherwise eligible from the due date. The needful be done on or before 31.8.2011. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.