The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Desh Deepak Srivastava & Ors. vs Delhi High Court &Anr. consisting of Justices Suresh Kumar Kaitand Saurabh Banerjee observed that a candidate who avails of study leave but takes no interest to complete the course and doesn’t furnish completion certificate to that effect is doing a disservice to the organization.
Facts
The petitioner joined services of Border Security Force (BSF) in the rank of Assistant Commandant in 1991. He had applied and was selected to undergo Post Graduate Diploma in Public Policy and Management at MDI, Gurgaon for the academic year 2009-11 from George Mason University, USA for a period of one year and nine months and had submitted the requisite bond in 2009; accepting the terms and conditions implied therefor. However, the venue of international module got shifted to Sciences PO University, Paris, which was objected to by the petitioner. Due to various issues, he had applied for voluntary retirement. However, it was directed that the whole expenditure incurred on him for undergoing PGDPPM with interest, barring the period he was not offered opportunity for completing his dissertation, be recovered from his due entitlements. Hence this petition.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: He was supposed to be provided nine months for completing the dissertation, however, he was given charge of Commandant in an extremely hard area and even his request for posting at BSF headquarters to enable him to complete his dissertation was declined. Even his requests to the IG, Training and the then Hon’ble Home Minister of India were not considered. His application for voluntary retirement was accepted and he was relieved from service, however, his retiral dues were not released despite his letter. Respondents had no right to recover the bond amount, especially when no such demand was raised by them.
Respondent: The recoveries made from the petitioner were as per rules and do not call for any interference.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that even though the venue of international module got shifted, the same is an administrative decision and nothing had stopped the petitioner to deny undergoing the course/ training if at all he was totally unwilling to join it from a university of Paris. It was also noted that he has not placed on record any document / communication to show that he had requested the authorities to place him at a soft posting where he could complete his dissertation. Moreover, it was made clear in terms of the conditions of the bond that the officials shall complete dissertation at their work place.
From his representation it was clear to the Bench that the petitioner had lost interest in his job and was willing to quit his official responsibilities at the earliest and in haste. He even undertook to pay off the outstanding dues towards the subject course, barring the period he could not complete his dissertation. The Bench reiterated the contention of the Respondent that “A candidate who avails of study leave but takes no interest to complete the course is and doesn't furnish the completion certificate to that effect is doing a disservice to the organization”.
Judgment
The Bench was not convinced with the plea of the petitioner that due to hard posting he could not complete his dissertation in view of the fact that despite being a person of prudent knowledge and holding an imperative designation, he did not write even once for extension of time to write the dissertation, whereas he had all the time to un-authoritatively communicate with the University of USA on travel and visa issues, which is purely an administrative decision.
Hence, it was concluded that the petitioner cannot be absolved of his liability to pay the Government all charges and expenses, which were incurred on account of his training as per rules. The respondents were entitled to recover from petitioner only fixed expenses of Rs.15,01,089/- towards the total expenditure incurred on training programme but not entitled to recover interest for the reasons mentioned in the Judgment. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to refund the interest component with interest @7.5% p.a. in favour of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of Judgment.
Case:Surender Singh Hoodavs Union of India And Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 7382/2012
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Decided on: 25th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
