Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 10546/2015
Date of Decision: 14th January, 2016 JAGAT NARAYAN PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. P.S. Khare, Advocate.
Through Mr. Jagjit Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Preet Singh and Mr. Pranav Aggarwal, Advocates.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner Jagat Narayan Prasad impugns order dated 16th October, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (Tribunal, for short). The impugned order dismisses
OA No.3724/2013 filed by the petitioner for release of Rs.8,01,463/- with interest @ 18% per annum compounded.
JUDGMENT
2. The petitioner had joined Central Railway on 30th January, 1976 and had retired as an employee of North-Central Railway on 31st July, 2013. Pension order dated 19th July, 2013 was issued. An 2016:DHC:308-DB amount of Rs.8,01,473/- was withheld and was shown as debited from his total emoluments. The petitioner then filed the aforesaid OA that the aforesaid adjustment was not permissible without issue of show cause notice and there was violation of principles of natural justice.
3. The respondent North-Central Railway in their reply projected a different picture and had pointed out that departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 17th July, 2013, issued prior to the petitioner’s retirement. The petitioner had not stated or revealed the said facts in the OA. The allegation in the charge sheet pertains to the Scheduled Tribe certificate, which, it is alleged was found to be fake on enquiry and investigation. The petitioner, it is stated, relying on the certificate had claimed that he belonged to Kharwar community, a Scheduled Tribe. However, reports had been received from the Senior Welfare Inspector and Zila Kalyan Padhadhikari stating that the petitioner did not belong to Kharwar community (ST) and is Kamkar by caste, a backward caste.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that he was never served with the said charge sheet on or before the date of retirement on 31st July, 2013, and, therefore, withholding of Rs.8,01,473/- was unjustified and contrary to law.
5. This factual position disputed by the respondents, who claim that charge sheet was issued on 17th July, 2013 by sending it to the petitioner through registered post.
6. The impugned order of the Tribunal records the conflicting stand of the parties and records that the charge sheet was issued prior to the date of retirement, but the service was disputed.
7. The Tribunal in the impugned order has relied on the following passage from Union of India and Others Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar & Ors. JT 1998 (6) SC[1]:-
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that enquiry may be expedited as retirement benefits have been withheld. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that in spite of repeated letters, petitioner has not been appearing and, in fact, the letters have been received back unserved. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would appear before the Enquiry Officer B.K. Pateriya, Divisional Commercial Inspector, Divisional Office, Jhansi on 8th February, 2016 at 2.30 p.m.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the application for placing on record additional documents, as he seeks to rely on a caste certificate dated 25th October, 1991 and states that he would file this document before the authorities.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the departmental enquiry and allegations, subject matter of the said inquiry.
SANJIV KHANNA, J. ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. JANUARY 14, 2016 NA