Delhi High Court
Sh.J.S. Verma vs Union Of India & Others on 6 January, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.25/2010
% Date of Decision: 06.01.2010
Sh.J.S. Verma .... Petitioner
Through Mr.V.P.S. Tyagi, Advocate
Versus
Union of India & Others .... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
*
CM No.47/2010
This is an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the
petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed. Delay in
refiling the petition is condoned. The application is disposed of.
W.P. (C.) No.25/2010
The petitioner challenges the order dated 4th September, 2008 in
OA No.1842 of 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi titled Shri J.S. Verma v. Union of India and
others, dismissing his petition seeking quashing of order dated 25th
June, 2008 passed by the reviewing authority, viz., the President and
direction to the respondents to pay arrears of pay and allowances with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum and to release the payment of
withheld TA/DA.
The Major penalty proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner on account of submitting false TA/DA and using derogatory
and evasive replies. An inquiry officer was appointed to conduct
detailed inquiry in respect of charges made against him. Pursuant to
the inquiry report, the defence of the petitioner presented on 21st
December, 1998 and 16th July, 1999 were considered and by order
dated 15th September, 1999, the disciplinary authority imposed the
punishment of reduction of pay by three stages in the time scale of pay
till the date of his retirement on 31st July, 2000.
The major penalty imposed on the petitioner was modified in
appeal by order dated 15th December, 2003, whereby the penalty was
modified to the extent of reduction of pay by three stages in time scale
with effect from 15th September, 1999 to 29th July, 2000 with the
condition that the petitioner would not earn increment of pay during
such reduction and such reduction would have the effect of postponing
of his future increment of pay.
Against the imposition of major penalty, protracted litigation had
been filed by the petitioner which has been considered by the Tribunal
in detail. The Tribunal has noted that against the order of the appellate
authority dated 15th December, 2003, the petitioner had filed a petition
seeking modification of pension after two years and five months. By
considering different petitions filed by the petitioner, it has been
inferred that the intention of the petitioner has been to prolong the
litigation in one way or the other. The Tribunal has noted that the claim
of the petitioner was hopelessly barred by limitation, still on merits the
pleas of the petitioner were considered and rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order
dated 15th December, 2003 was passed in revision and not in the
appeal. This may not be material as by order dated 4th September,
2008, the petition against the order dated 25th June, 2008 has been
disposed of. The petitioner had challenged the order on the basis of
denial of principle of natural justice, however, no details were given by
the petitioner whereby the principle of natural justice were denied to
him except making generic allegations.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to disclose any
ground on the basis of which the order dated 4th September, 2008 can
be faulted in the facts and circumstances. For the foregoing reasons,
there is no merit in the writ petition and it is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
JANUARY 06, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'ag/Dev'
