Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 94 (GUJ)

Mukesh J. Shukla v. State of Gujarat

2017-01-16

P.P.BHATT

body2017
JUDGMENT : P.P. Bhatt, J. 1. Leave to correct Annexure-B to Annexure-I and date 21.10.2005 to 20.10.2005 in prayer clause 10(AA). Correction be carried out forthwith. 2. The petitioner, by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/order to quash and set aside the order dated 20.10.2005 produced at Annexure-I, passed by the Secretary to the State Government, Legal Department. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Class-I Gazetted Officer and was working as Inspecting Officer (Court Fees), City Civil Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad, from 01.03.2001 to 03.09.2003. During his posting at Ahmedabad he was also functioning as In-charge Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) at Nadiad. After his transfer nobody was regularly posted to succeed the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was only given an additional charge as In-charge Inspecting Officer (Court Fees), City Civil Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad. It is the case of the petitioner that during the period from 04.03.2003 to 27.08.2003, the petitioner had traveled on duty in connection with inspection and other official purposes. With a view to claiming his T.A., D.A, the petitioner had prepared his claim statement (i.e. T.A. Bill), but the same could not be submitted on account of non-availability of grant. In the meantime the petitioner got transferred and the respondent No. 2 took over the charge. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the Rule 121 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules, the petitioner being a Class-I Officer, he is controlling officer for himself and his subordinate and therefore, his bills are not put to scrutiny by anyone including the respondent No. 2. The petitioner on number of occasions requested the respondent No. 2 to submit his bills but to no avail. Instead of submitting the bills to the Treasury, the respondent No. 2 has raised false queries to which the petitioner is even otherwise not required to satisfy, but to maintain the decorum, the petitioner has replied to all the queries. Since the respondent No. 2 did not submit the bills to the Treasury, the petitioner gave legal notice to which he has neither replied nor forwarded the bills to the Treasury. Because of the said delay, some of the claims have also became time barred, and therefore, the petitioner is left with no other alternative, but to approach this Court. 5. Because of the said delay, some of the claims have also became time barred, and therefore, the petitioner is left with no other alternative, but to approach this Court. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that during the period from 04.03.2003 to 27.08.2003, the petitioner had traveled on duty in connection with inspection and other official purposes and with a view to claiming his T.A., D.A. the petitioner had prepared his claim statement (i.e. T.A. Bill). While referring to the bills produced at Annexure-A to the petition, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that all the requisite details such as date of journey, place and kind of works performed during such visit is indicated in the said statement/T.A. bills. The petitioner got transferred to Vadodara and on being transferred the petitioner was relieved from the charge from the office at Ahmedabad on 03.09.2003 and though the claim statement (i.e. T.A. Bill) was ready for submission, the same could not be submitted on account of non-availability of grant. The respondent No. 2 being a successor of the petitioner in office was required to present the said T.A., D.A. bills to the Treasury after making necessary endorsement and completing other formalities. It is further submitted that after resuming as Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) at Vadodara, the petitioner had written to respondent No. 2 on two occasions requesting him to forward the claim bills prepared by the petitioner as the same was kept ready for presenting before the Treasury Officer. It is further submitted that as per the Rule 121 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules, the petitioner being Class-I Officer, he is controlling officer for himself and his subordinate. His bill was therefore not subject to scrutiny by any person whatsoever including the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 had no right or authority to scrutinize the T.A., D.A. bills prepared by the petitioner and find fault with them nor raise any query. However, with a view to maintain the decorum, the petitioner had replied all the quarries raised by the respondent No. 2. However, the T.A., D.A. bills were not processed in further and some of the claims have become time barred. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted detailed representation on 01.05.2004 to the Secretary, Legal Department, but no final order releasing the claim of the petitioner was passed. 6. However, the T.A., D.A. bills were not processed in further and some of the claims have become time barred. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted detailed representation on 01.05.2004 to the Secretary, Legal Department, but no final order releasing the claim of the petitioner was passed. 6. It was pointed out that at the time of admission of the present petition, the Co-ordinate of this Court while passing the interim order dated 09.09.2005, directed that the Secretary to the State Government, Legal Department, shall examine the claim for travelling allowance and daily allowance claimed by the petitioner which is subject matter of this petition and if found genuine shall be endorsed to the treasury for disbursement of the amount. The said exercise was to be completed within six weeks from the date of the order. It is further submitted that prior to 01.05.2004, a legal notice was given by the petitioner on 15.04.2004 to the respondent No. 2 In-charge Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) and the respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 19.04.2004 once again requested the petitioner to submit complete details of work done by him during his official tour along with justification for necessity, frequency and duration of tour. It is further submitted that since the respondent No. 2 has once again sought such clarification, the petitioner instead of addressing letter/ representation to the respondent No. 2, addressed detailed representation dated 01.05.2004 to the Secretary, Legal Department, and produced all the relevant details. Thereafter, the Secretary, Legal Department vide his order dated 20.10.2005, rejected the claim of the petitioner mainly on two grounds, one that the petitioner had undertaken journey for about 9 to 10 days in a month i.e. more than 6 days in a month, which is in violation of the administrative instructions given by the Chief Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) vide his letters dated 2.11.1982 and 25.09.1997 and secondly, that the petitioner had also not sent the tour programme in advance to the office of the Chief Inspecting Officer (Court Fees). While passing the said order, the Secretary, Legal Department, has observed that the visits of the petitioner at the places mentioned in the statement of TA/DA bills may not be doubted, nonetheless, he was also required to justify the necessity, frequency and duration of such visits and halts to the satisfaction of the Controlling Officer which the petitioner has failed to do so. By making the said observation, the claim of the TA/DA bills was came to be rejected by the said order. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the Office of the Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) for High Court and Small Causes Court and Ex-Officio Chief Inspector of (Court-Fees), issued administrative instructions on 02.11.1982 to all the Inspecting Officers (Court Fees), wherein it is stated that, it is found that only some Inspecting Officers (Court Fees) are touring for the period of 6 days in a month outside the head quarter, for inspection of the record of the courts for verification of the court fees. As a result whereof the very object of inspection of many courts is not achieved for which the Government has prescribed sufficient period for touring. It is therefore earnestly desired that each Inspecting Officer (Court Fees), who has to visit one district town courts should visit at least 5 courts other than district town courts in each quarter of the year. The Inspecting Officers were also requested that they should undertake journey for maximum six (6) days in a month henceforth without affecting the work at headquarters. 8. According to learned advocate for the petitioner with a view to comply the administrative instructions issued by the Chief Inspecting Officer, the petitioner has undertaken the tour programme within his jurisdiction as desired by the Government to fulfill the very object of inspection as mention in the letter dated 02.11.1982. Since the petitioner was holding additional charge of Nadiad, the petitioner had undertaken tour programme so as to cover the courts' functioning within the jurisdiction of both the places, and therefore, he had to travel for a period of about 9 to 10 days. The details about the journey undertaken by him and the places inspected by him and the nature of work performed by him and as a result thereof total amount of deficit court fees during the quarter noticed by him which comes to Rs. 99222-50/-. The details about the journey undertaken by him and the places inspected by him and the nature of work performed by him and as a result thereof total amount of deficit court fees during the quarter noticed by him which comes to Rs. 99222-50/-. The petitioner has examined total 304 cases during his visit to various places. The details of tour programme was provided at the time of preparing the T.A./D.A. Bills, but such bills could not be presented for want of grant with the Treasury and subsequently when his successor came and started raising queries, he has provided all required details to justify his claim. However, the respondent No. 2 has not presented the bills before the Treasury, and therefore, the petitioner gave a legal notice and ultimately in the petition filed before this Court in pursuant to the interim direction given by this Court, he submitted all the required details before the Secretary, Legal Department in justification of his claim. However, the Secretary, Legal Department, has rejected the claim. 9. Learned advocate for the petitioner while concluding his submissions, submits that the queries raised with regard to visit of Sahera Court, was also submitted along with certified copy of Rojkam. A copy of the said Rojkam is also produced along with the affidavit-in- rejoinder. It is submitted that all the queries raised by the respondents have been fulfilled by the petitioner, but the respondents did not consider the lawful claim made by the petitioner, which in fact in consonance with the Financial Rules as also the administrative instructions issued by the chief Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) from time to time including the instructions issued on 02.11.1982 and 25.09.1997. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents opposed the petition and submits that the decision taken by the Secretary, Legal Department, in pursuant to the direction given by this Court vide its order dated 09.09.2005, is in accordance with law. It is submitted that the Secretary, Legal Department, has taken into consideration the justification submitted by the petitioner in support of his claim, but it was found that the claim put forward by the petitioner for journey undertaken by him for the purpose of inspection of Courts is doubtful and the procedural formality which was required to be undertaken by the petitioner before commencement of such tour has not been complied with. Moreover, the petitioner has travelled beyond the period of 6 days prescribed by the Government, which was communicated to all the Inspecting Officers (Court Fees) on 02.11.1982 and 25.09.1997. 11. According to learned Assistant Government Pleader, the petitioner was not supposed to travel for inspection purpose beyond a period of 6 days, and therefore, the claim of T.A./D.A. Bills for a period of 9 to 10 days is in contravention of administrative instructions issued by the State, and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the said claim. It is also submitted that the T.A. Bill prepared by the petitioner was not countersigned and the Register was also not maintained for the purpose of official tour undertaken by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to explain his case with all justifications before final decision is taken by the Secretary, Legal Department and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Secretary, Legal Department. Hence, the present petition may be dismissed. 12. Regard being had to the above submissions and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the petitioner was working as Class-I Gazetted Officer and was working as Inspecting Officer (Court Fees), City Civil Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad, from 10.03.2001 to 03.09.2003. It further appears that the petitioner during the period from 04.03.2003 to 27.08.2003 had traveled on duty in connection with inspection and other official purposes and with a view to claiming his T.A., D.A. the petitioner had prepared his claim statement (i.e. T.A. Bill), but the same could not be presented before the Treasury for want of sufficient grant. In the meantime, the petitioner got transferred and the respondent No. 2 took over the charge. The petitioner was Class-I Gazetted Officer, and therefore, being drawing and disbursement authority, the procedure as prescribed under Rules 120 to 122 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Traveling Allowance) Rule, 2002, is required to be followed while presenting the bills. It appears that the petitioner accordingly prepared the T.A. Bills in B.T.R. Form No. 21, which is annexed to the petition vide Annexure-A. The total amount of the Bills was Rs. 20693/-. 13. On perusal of the said bills, it appears that the petitioner has given date-wise details of the work undertaken by him and all other relevant particulars as required under the prescribed format. 20693/-. 13. On perusal of the said bills, it appears that the petitioner has given date-wise details of the work undertaken by him and all other relevant particulars as required under the prescribed format. The said bills were prepared after verifying the records, meaning thereby the records maintained by the Office of Inspecting Officer (Court Fees). In the said bills, the necessary certification as required before presentation of bill is also done and Point No. 1 to 6, as it reflects from the Page 16 of Annexure-A, it becomes clear that all the requisite procedural formalities were completed and the bills kept ready for presenting before the Treasury Officer. The petitioner being a Class-I Gazetted Officer as also being a drawing and disbursement authority, under the Gujarat Civil Services (Traveling Allowance) Rule, 2002, was required to submit the bills before the Treasury Officer, but for want of sufficient grant, the said bills could not be presented. In the meantime, the petitioner got transferred to Vadodara as Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) and his successor i.e. respondent No. 2 after resuming charge instead of presenting the said bills on availability of grant with the Treasury, started queries, which in fact were not within his purview. But at it reveals from the record that the respondent No. 2 as if he is superior authority to the petitioner started raising queries and called for explanation and justification of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner with a view to maintain the dignity and decorum replied all the queries raised by the respondent No. 2 and therefore, the respondent No. 2 was duty bound to process the said bills, but the respondent No. 2 kept it pending for a long period so as to see that the T.A., D.A. claim raised by the petitioner is being frustrated. 14. From the averments made in the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it appears that the respondent No. 2 was having some prejudice against the petitioner, and therefore, he started causing harassment to the petitioner by raising queries in the T.A./D.A. bills prepared by the petitioner. Ultimately it has resulted in denial of the lawful claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner gave legal notice through his advocate on 15.04.2004. The respondent No. 2 instead of reply the said notice once again asked the petitioner to submit the details and justification. 15. Ultimately it has resulted in denial of the lawful claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner gave legal notice through his advocate on 15.04.2004. The respondent No. 2 instead of reply the said notice once again asked the petitioner to submit the details and justification. 15. Thus, it appears from the material on record that the intention of the respondent No. 2 was to cause delay so that the claim of the T.A., D.A. bills becomes time barred. Ultimately the petitioner had to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while admitting the petition vide order dated 09.09.2005, gave direction to the Secretary, Legal Department, to examine the claim for travelling allowance and daily allowance claimed by the petitioner which is subject matter of this petition and it is observed that if the claim is found to be genuine it shall be endorsed to the treasury for disbursement of the amount. The said exercise was to be completed within six weeks. 16. It appears that the petitioner submitted detailed representation before the Secretary, Legal Department, even prior to passing of the interim order. The said representation is also annexed to the petition vide Annexure-H. On perusal of the said representation, it appears that the petitioner has tried to justify his claim, but the Secretary, Legal Department vide its order dated 20.10.2005 rejected the claim of the petitioner in respect of T.A., D.A. bills mainly on two grounds, one that the petitioner had undertaken journey for about 9 to 10 days in a month i.e. more than 6 days in a month, which is in violation of the administrative instructions given by the Chief Inspecting Officer (Court Fees) vide his letters dated 2.11.1982 and 25.09.1997, and secondly, that the petitioner had also not sent the tour programme in advance to the office of the Chief Inspecting Officer (Court Fees). Reasons for which the claim of the petitioner has been denied are appears to be contrary to the administrative instructions issued on 02.11.1982 by the Government under the signature of Chief Inspecting Officer (Court Fees). As per the said administrative instructions, the Inspecting Officers (Court Fees) have been directed to visit Courts within their jurisdiction for a period of 6 days in a month. As per the said administrative instructions, the Inspecting Officers (Court Fees) have been directed to visit Courts within their jurisdiction for a period of 6 days in a month. A Copy of the said administrative instructions dated 02.11.1982 is also placed on record by the petitioner along with the affidavit-in-rejoinder. For ready reference the said letter is reproduced herein-below: "On scruting of the Quarterly return for the period from 1st July to 31st September 1982 of all the Inspecting Officers (Court-fees) in the State, it is found that only some Inspecting Officers (Court-fees) are touring for the period of 6 days in a month outside the head quarter, for inspection of the record of the courts for verification of the court fees. As a result whereof the very object of inspection of many courts is not achieved for which the government has prescribed sufficient period for touring. It is therefore earnestly desired that each Inspecting Officer (Court-fees), who has to visit one district town courts should visit atleast 5 courts other than district town courts in each quarter of the year. It is further requested that each Inspecting Officer should complete touring programme of 6 days in a month hence forth." 17. On perusal of the above referred letter, it becomes clear that there was a clear mandate to all the Inspecting Officers (Court Fees) to visit or undertake tour programme for a period 6 days in a month outside the head quarter. 18. It is pertinent to note that the period during which the T.A. bills are claimed by the petitioner, he was holding two charges, meaning thereby charge of Office at Ahmedabad as well as additional charge of Nadiad. The administrative instructions issued on 02.11.1982, clearly indicates that the Inspecting Officers (Court Fees) are required to visit at least 6 days in a month outside the head quarter for the purpose of inspection of records of the Courts for verification of the Court fees within their respective jurisdiction. Since the petitioner was holding additional charge of Nadiad it was not possible for him to comply with the administrative instructions prescribed in communication dated 02.11.1982. Since the petitioner was holding additional charge of Nadiad it was not possible for him to comply with the administrative instructions prescribed in communication dated 02.11.1982. The petitioner supposed to travel 6+6 days, in all 12 days in a month for the purpose of compliance of the administrative instructions issued by the Government through Chief Inspecting Officer vide his communication dated 02.11.1982, but the petitioner because of other administrative responsibilities had travelled for a period of 9 to 10 days in a month and tried to cover both the jurisdictions for which he has prepared T.A., D.A. bills of an amount of Rs. 20693/-. 19. As discussed hereinabove, the petitioner has provided all requisite particulars in the said bills and not only that he has also submitted his justification in support of his bills from time to time in response to the queries raised by the respondent No. 2. However, it appears that the respondents have not taken into consideration the claim of T.A., D.A. bills raised by the petitioner. It appears that the Secretary, Legal Department, without taking into consideration the justification submitted by the petitioner in its proper perspective and without taking into consideration the important fact that the petitioner was holding additional charge of Nadiad over and above his regular charge, and therefore, he had to travel for a period of 12 days instead of 6 days, as prescribed in the administrative instructions issued on 02.11.1982 by the State Government through Chief Inspecting Officer. It also appears that the Secretary, Legal Department, has lost sight of the fact that the petitioner has travelled for a period of nine to ten days instead of spending twelve days to cover the journey of both the jurisdictions assigned to him. In fact, the petitioner has tried to comply with the administrative instructions contained in above referred letters to discharge his duty. 20. Form the details provided by the petitioner in his bills as well as in his subsequent justification, at no stretch of imagination it can be believed that it is beyond the record because the amount claimed by the petitioner is very small and the petitioner has produced all relevant materials to show that he has actually undertaken the journey during the said period and that too for official work. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 20.10.2005 is deserved to be quash and set aside and the petitioner is required to pay his legitimate dues of T.A. bills within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. Ordered accordingly. 21. The present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Disposed off.