Lakshmi Narayan Mukhopadhyay Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4759-4760 of 1996
Petitioner: Lakshmi Narayan Mukhopadhyay
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 4759-4760 of 1996
Judges: S.N. PHUKAN & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 20, 2002
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 136 – Non-payment of retiral benefits in full – Tribunal upholding the orders of recovery on grounds that certain material was supplied by appellant in excess and amount was recoverable – Retirement on 30.11.91 – Vide letter dt. 24.11.92, amount ordered to be recovered from gratuity – Nothing to show that amount was arrived at by giving opportunity to appellant – Nothing to show as to what guide lines were violated. Held that order of tribunal was not sustainable. Respondents directed to release the amount with lumpsum of Rs. 10,000/-. (Paras 4, 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal, Calcutta bench dated 24.2.1995 and 29.6.1995 in O.A. No. 1170/93 and review petition in M.A. No. 117/95 respectively.
2. The appellant was employed in the ministry of railways as inspector of works, in-charge. He voluntarily retired from service on 30.11.1991. Since the post-retirement benefits were not paid to him in full, he approached the tribunal. The tribunal on perusal of the record produced by the respondents held that the appellant, inspector of works supplied to contractors excess of material and a sum of Rs.49,536/- was recoverable from the appellant’s gratuity amount. The impugned order dated 24.11.1992 was upheld.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has erred in law inasmuch as this amount was arrived at by the respondent without giving opportunity to the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India has contended that by letter dated 12.6.1991 the appellant was asked to explain and thereafter, the Divl. Rly. Manager (Engg.) by letter dated 24.11.1992, i.e., after the voluntary retirement of the appellant, directed that the amount should be recovered from the amount of gratuity of the appellant. We extract below the relevant part of the letter which was produced before the High Court.
“It has been observed that Sri L.N. Mukhopadhyay while functioning as IOW/SNY issued the following excess materials to contractors M/s. Hiramoti Construction (P) Ltd. Jamshedpur without observing the guide lines issued by the Hd. Quarters office & this office.
——————————————
Sr.No. Details of excess material issued Qty Value (Rs.)
——————————————
1) M.S.Rod 20mm size @ 11500/- MT 149.386 kg Rs. 1,717.94
2) – do – 16mm size @ – do – 188.573 kg Rs. 2,168.59
3) – do – 12mm size @ – do – 933.227 kg Rs. 10,732.11
4) – do – 10mm size @ 2000/- MT 863.340 kg Rs. 10,360.08
5) – do – 8mm size @ – do – 965.285 kg Rs. 11,583.42
6) – do – 6mm size @ – do – 382.412 kg Rs. 1,588.94
——
41,151.08
Add: 20.375% for incidental and 8,384.53
supervision charges etc. ——
49,535.61
Say 49,536/-
Competent authority issued orders for recovery of Rs.19,535/- from the DCRS & Other dues of Sri L.N. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-IOW/SNY.
You are therefore, requested to make necessary recovery of Rs.49,536/- from the settlement dues of Shri L.N. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-IOW-SNY with an intimation to him and the recovery particulars may be intimated to this office to close the same.
Sd/-
Divl. Rly. Manager (Engg.)
Chakradharpur
4. There is nothing in the letter to show that this amount was arrived at after giving opportunity to the appellant or that the amount due was quantified by the date of retirement. The alleged letter dated 12.6.1991 giving show cause notice has not been brought on record or referred to in the impugned order. Moreover, what guidelines were not followed by the appellant, was also not indicated in the letter. We, therefore, hold that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the tribunal dated 24.2.1995 in O.A. No. 1170/93 is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. We direct the respondents to pay the amount within two months. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for interest at the rate of 12%.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lumpsum to the appellant in addition to the above said amount. The amount shall be released within a period of two months.
6. In view of the above order, there is no need to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order of the tribunal dismissing the review application.
7. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal, Calcutta bench dated 24.2.1995 and 29.6.1995 in O.A. No. 1170/93 and review petition in M.A. No. 117/95 respectively.
2. The appellant was employed in the ministry of railways as inspector of works, in-charge. He voluntarily retired from service on 30.11.1991. Since the post-retirement benefits were not paid to him in full, he approached the tribunal. The tribunal on perusal of the record produced by the respondents held that the appellant, inspector of works supplied to contractors excess of material and a sum of Rs.49,536/- was recoverable from the appellant’s gratuity amount. The impugned order dated 24.11.1992 was upheld.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has erred in law inasmuch as this amount was arrived at by the respondent without giving opportunity to the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India has contended that by letter dated 12.6.1991 the appellant was asked to explain and thereafter, the Divl. Rly. Manager (Engg.) by letter dated 24.11.1992, i.e., after the voluntary retirement of the appellant, directed that the amount should be recovered from the amount of gratuity of the appellant. We extract below the relevant part of the letter which was produced before the High Court.
“It has been observed that Sri L.N. Mukhopadhyay while functioning as IOW/SNY issued the following excess materials to contractors M/s. Hiramoti Construction (P) Ltd. Jamshedpur without observing the guide lines issued by the Hd. Quarters office & this office.
——————————————
Sr.No. Details of excess material issued Qty Value (Rs.)
——————————————
1) M.S.Rod 20mm size @ 11500/- MT 149.386 kg Rs. 1,717.94
2) – do – 16mm size @ – do – 188.573 kg Rs. 2,168.59
3) – do – 12mm size @ – do – 933.227 kg Rs. 10,732.11
4) – do – 10mm size @ 2000/- MT 863.340 kg Rs. 10,360.08
5) – do – 8mm size @ – do – 965.285 kg Rs. 11,583.42
6) – do – 6mm size @ – do – 382.412 kg Rs. 1,588.94
——
41,151.08
Add: 20.375% for incidental and 8,384.53
supervision charges etc. ——
49,535.61
Say 49,536/-
Competent authority issued orders for recovery of Rs.19,535/- from the DCRS & Other dues of Sri L.N. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-IOW/SNY.
You are therefore, requested to make necessary recovery of Rs.49,536/- from the settlement dues of Shri L.N. Mukhopadhyay, Ex-IOW-SNY with an intimation to him and the recovery particulars may be intimated to this office to close the same.
Sd/-
Divl. Rly. Manager (Engg.)
Chakradharpur
4. There is nothing in the letter to show that this amount was arrived at after giving opportunity to the appellant or that the amount due was quantified by the date of retirement. The alleged letter dated 12.6.1991 giving show cause notice has not been brought on record or referred to in the impugned order. Moreover, what guidelines were not followed by the appellant, was also not indicated in the letter. We, therefore, hold that in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the tribunal dated 24.2.1995 in O.A. No. 1170/93 is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. We direct the respondents to pay the amount within two months. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for interest at the rate of 12%.
5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lumpsum to the appellant in addition to the above said amount. The amount shall be released within a period of two months.
6. In view of the above order, there is no need to go into the correctness or otherwise of the order of the tribunal dismissing the review application.
7. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
