Delhi High Court
D.C. Mehtani vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 IAD Delhi 840, 78 (1999) DLT 35
Author: K Ramamoorthy
Bench: K Ramamoorthy
ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner was working with the second respondent as Executive Engineer till 21st of March, 1988. From 22nd March, 1988, he was on deputation with the third respondent, Indira Gandhi National Open University. At the time of taking charge on deputation with the third respondent, the petitioner had handed over the charge to his counterpart, including the Jeep No.DID 4998 under his control. The petitioner retired from service on the 31st of March, 1992.
2. The retiral benefits are not given to him on the ground that a recovery is to be made from him on account of nonproduction of the log book of the Jeep No.DID 4998, which gave rise to the issue, whether the petitioner used the vehicle for duty purposes or he made nonduty journeys in the Jeep No.DID 4998.
3. There has been series of correspondence and it is not necessary to refer to them, except to cull out what is the object of the correspondence. According to the respondents 1 & 2, the petitioner did not hand over the log book of the Jeep No.DID 4998 when he handed over the charge. According to the petitioner, he handed over the log book and he is not responsible for the loss of the log book or the production of the log book after he joined the third respondent.
4. The first letter, after the petitioner left for deputation with the third respondent, was issued to the petitioner on the 17th of December, 1988. The letter reads as under:
Sub: Log Books for Jeep No.DID 4998.
"With reference to Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division letter No.EE/MID/Vehicle/8889/6831 dated 21.11.1988 on the subject cited above. Shri B.S.Hooda Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division has reported that you have not handed over the Log Books of the said Jeep till date inspite of his various verbal & Telephonic reminders to you. You are requested to hand over the Log Books of the said Jeep to Shri B.S.Hooda, Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division with an intimation to this office immediately, otherwise the matter will be taken up with the Chief Engineer(I&F) for necessary action."
5. The petitioner had made the position clear that he had handed over the log book and it was not available with the petitioner. No action had been taken by the respondents 1 & 2 against the petitioner on this account. It is now stated in the counter that inquiry was initiated against the driver of the vehicle and the matter is pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
6. The second respondent stated that a sum of Rs.1,68,510 is due on this account and a suit also had been filed by the second respondent against the petitioner and the same is pending in the Lower Court. And that is not relevant. Subject to ultimate result in the suit, the petitioner would be entitled to draw the retiral benefits.
7. The burden of proving that the petitioner did not hand over the log book of Jeep No.DID 4998 is on the second respondent. At the time when the petitioner handed over the charge in March, 1988, the officer who took charge from the petitioner should have been careful and noted down that along with the vehicle log book had not been handed over by the petitioner. The explanation given by the second respondent now is that the officer who took the charge from the petitioner had been contacting the petitioner personally and asking for the log book and the vehicle was being used with a new log book.
8. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the log book was not given by the petitioner to the second respondent on the date when he handed over the charge to his counterpart. The delay, in issuing the letter dated 17.12.1988, of eight months, after the petitioner had taken charge in the third respondent, has not been explained. The vehicle was being used from 6.11.1985 up to March, 1988 and the petitioner was on duty during this time. On the ground that the log book of the vehicle had not been produced, assuming it to be correct, the second respondent cannot take it that the entire 73,268 kilometres, which was run by the vehicle from the date of its purchase to the date when the petitioner handed over the charge, was run by the petitioner on nonduty journeys and make a demand for the same from the petitioner. The second respondent should have considered the matter in the light of the user of the vehicle by all the officers in the previous years and should have determined how the vehicle was being used by the officer concerned or his predecessor.
9. In my view, no person properly instructed in law would have issued the showcause notice as had been done by the second respondent. In the absence of any materials to show that how the vehicle was used for nonduty journey, the presumption by the second respondent is absolutely baseless and that cannot form the basis of a showcause notice. The second respondent had not acted in accordance with law in issuing the showcause notice to the petitioner and had acted on conjectures. Therefore, in my view, the stand taken by the second respondent is without any authority of law and it is absolutely perverse. In this view, the petitioner would entitled to all retiral benefits.
10. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to:
(a) allow the writ petition with costs.
(b) pass an appropriate writ directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to transfer the service benefits in respect of petitioner within 15 days so that petitioner's retiral benefits including his pension, gratuity and leave encashment along with interest at the rate of 18% can be given at the earliest."
11. The respondents 1 & 2 shall pass orders transferring all the benefits accrued to the petitioner to the third respondent on or before 30th of April, 1999 and the third respondent shall pay all the retiral benefits to the petitioner on or before the 31st of May, 1999.
12. The petitioner has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum. Having regard to the circumstances, I am of the view that the rate of interest could be fixed at 12% per annum on the dues of the petitioner. The respondents 1 & 2 shall pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount due to the petitioner.
13. The writ petition stands allowed.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
