Bimal Roy Chaudhery S/O Late ... vs The General Manager, (P And A) ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1617 Bom

                                                                                                          wp.3265.13

                                                            1



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                            ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 3265/2013

Bimal Roy Choudhary s/o Late Bhupendranath Roy Choudhary Aged about 63 years, occu: Retired R/o C/o G.R. Godselwar

Basera Apartment, RMS colony Nagpur-440 013. ..PETITIONER

v e r s u s

1) The General Manager ( P & A) Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited Seminary Hills, Nagpur- 440 006.

2) The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited Seminary Hills, Nagpur 440 006. ..RESPONDENT

...........................................................................................................................

Mr.R.K.Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.M.D.Samel, Advocate for the respondents ...........................................................................................................................

                                                    CORAM:    SMT. VASANTI  A. NAIK &
                                                                   MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                         . 
                                                    DATED :       11  April, 2017
                                                                    th



ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

Central Administrative Tribunal ( 'Tribunal'), dated 04.09.2012, so far as it

rejects the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the order of reversion.

wp.3265.13

2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant (Personnel) in the

Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited ("MECL"). While in service, the

petitioner secured house building advance of Rs. 97,300/- from the MECL

for the purchase of a flat. Within a period of three months from the date of

securing the advance, the petitioner was required to tender the documents

pertaining to the booking or purchase of the flat and/or the mortgage-deed, to

show that the house building advance was utilised by the petitioner for the

purpose of securing of a house/flat. Though the house building advance was

advanced in favour of the petitioner on 15.11.1989 and the sanction letter

clearly provided that the monthly installments payable to the MECL would be

of Rs. 700/-per month and the recovery would commence from June, 1991

and that the petitioner should tender the documents pertaining to the

transaction of purchase of the flat within three months from the date of

release of the first installment towards advance, the petitioner did not tender

the said documents. The petitioner retained the amount of Rs. 97,300/- and

after some time started paying the installments of Rs. 700/- per month

towards the repayment of the said amount. Even then, the petitioner did not

furnish any documents to point out that the petitioner had utilised the house

building advance for the purchase of the flat. The petitioner was charge-

sheeted in the year 1997 and after conducting an enquiry against the

petitioner, it was found that the petitioner had misappropriated the amount of

wp.3265.13

Rs. 97,300/- that was advanced to him as house building advance by not

utilising the same for the purchase of the flat. After the charge levelled against

the petitioner was held to be proved, the petitioner was reverted to the lower

stage and the petitioner was directed to repay the amount received by him

towards the house building advance with penal interest @ two per cent. When

the petitioner had challenged the said order in a Writ Petition, the petitioner

had given up his prayer in regard to his reversion by one scale. Later on, the

Writ Petition was transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as an Original

Application. On an appreciation of the material on record, the Tribunal held

that the MECL ought not have levied two per cent penal charges on the

petitioner. Except the aforesaid relief, the other prayers made by the petitioner

were rejected. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal

rejecting his prayer for setting aside the order of reversion.

3. Shri Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner was not able to purchase the flat though he had secured

the house building advance for the purchase of the same, as the Builder from

whom he desired to purchase the flat, was delaying the construction of the

same. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, it could not have

been said that the petitioner had misappropriated the amount of Rs.97,300/-.

It is stated that the punishment was wrongfully imposed upon the petitioner.

wp.3265.13

4. Shri Samel, the learned counsel for the respondents/MECL has

supported the order of the Tribunal. It is submitted that most of the conditions

mentioned in the bond tendered by the petitioner while securing the house

building advance are breached by the petitioner. It is submitted that the

petitioner did not utilise the amount of Rs. 97,300/- for the purchase of a

house or flat. It is submitted that no documents were tendered by the

petitioner to the MECL to demonstrate that the amount was utilised by the

petitioner for the purchase of the flat. It is submitted that if the Builder was

delaying the construction of the flat which the petitioner desired to purchase,

the petitioner should have returned the amount of Rs. 97,300/- to the MECL

and ought to have secured the same as and when he wished to purchase

another flat or house. It is stated that in the High Court, it was clearly stated

on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not so much aggrieved by

the order of his reversion. It is submitted that after giving up the said prayer,

the petitioner could not have challenged the order of reversion in the Tribunal.

5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal

of the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting

the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the order of reversion. The inquiry

was conducted against the petitioner in a fair and proper manner. There were

no lacunae in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. The charge

wp.3265.13

levelled against the petitioner of not utilising the amount of Rs. 97,300/- that

was secured by the petitioner towards house building advance was proved

against him. The petitioner never tendered any documents to the MECL within

the period of three months as per the rule or even thereafter, to demonstrate

that the amount secured by the petitioner towards the house building

advance was utilised by the petitioner for the purchase of the flat. The

Tribunal rightly held that the case of the petitioner that the Builder was

delaying the construction of the flat and, therefore, he desired to purchase

another flat in another building, was an afterthought. The Tribunal held and

rightly so that since the rules pertaining to the house building advance were

breached by the petitioner, it could not be said that the petitioner was unjustly

reverted to the lower scale. Also, it needs to be noticed that when the petition

was filed in the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner had made a

statement that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the order of his reversion

and mainly wanted to challenge the order imposing penal interest at the rate

of two per cent. If that is so, it is rightly submitted on behalf of the MECL that

the petitioner could not have turnaround to challenge the order of his

reversion, once the statement was made in the petition that was subsequently

transferred to the Tribunal, that he was not aggrieved by the order of

reversion. In any case, since we do not find that the punishment imposed

upon the petitioner is harsh or disproportionate to the misconduct committed

wp.3265.13

by him, there is no scope for interference with the order of the Tribunal, in

exercise of the writ jurisdiction. We find that major respite is granted by the

Tribunal to the petitioner by setting aside the order imposing penal interest at

the rate of two per cent.

6. Since the order of the Tribunal is just and proper, we dismiss the

Writ Petition, with no order as to costs.

                         JUDGE                            JUDGE
sahare