Atul Bhardwaj vs Shaheed Sukhdev College & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2166 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) No. 755/2012
%                                                         May 09, 2013

ATUL BHARDWAJ                                             ......Petitioner
                            Through:     None.


                            VERSUS


SHAHEED SUKHDEV COLLEGE & ANR.               ...... Respondents
                  Through: Ms. Ritika Nagpal, Advocate for
                           respondent No.1.
                           Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for
                           respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             No one was present for the petitioner on the first call. No one is

present for the petitioner even on the second call. I am therefore proceeding to

dispose of the writ petition on the basis of record and on hearing counsel for the

respondents.

2.             Writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Sh. Atul Bhardwaj who is the

employee of respondent No.1-Shaheed Sukhdev College for quashing of the letter

dated 26.12.2011 issued by the respondent No.1 to recover the amount of

WPC No. 755/2012                                                             Page 1 of 4
 Rs.61,000/-.     Orders of recovery were passed by the respondent No.1 as the

petitioner took the advance for LTC travel but failed to adhere to the applicable

guidelines for availing of LTC benefit.

3.             In the writ petition, the petitioner admits that petitioner did not

purchase the ticket from any of the authorized agents namely M/s. Balmer

Lawrie & Company, M/s Ashok Travels & Tours and IRCTC.                   Petitioner

however claims that petitioner was not aware of the Government Memorandum

dated 16.9.2010 requiring purchase of tickets only through these agents. The

petitioner is however quite clearly lying on oath because the respondent No.1

has filed the signatures of the petitioner showing that the contents of the circular

dated 16.9.2010 were duly noted by the petitioner. The circular alongwith the

annexed chart containing the signatures of the employees including the

petitioner has been filed by the respondent No.1 as Annexure R-2/2 and

Annexure R-3. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he had no

knowledge of the circular dated 16.9.2010.

4.             The respondent No.1 has also raised an issue that the petitioner has

wrongly shown the costs of air ticket as Rs.70,880/- whereas the amount paid

for the ticket was only Rs.38,928/-. This aspect has been adverted to by the

respondent No.1 in its counter-affidavit duly supported by the letter of Air India

dated 15.2.2011 as Annexure R-5. For the aforesaid reasons leading to violation
WPC No. 755/2012                                                            Page 2 of 4
 of service rules for wrongly taken LTC advance, respondent No.1 has already

initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The memorandum/show

cause notice alongwith Article of Charges dated 11.6.2012 has been annexed as

Annexures R-8/1 to R-8/6 with the counter-affidavit.

5.           There was an interim order in favour of the petitioner dated

7.2.2012 whereby recovery of the amount from the petitioner's salary was

stayed.   Petitioner was given time to file rejoinder affidavit way back on

9.1.2013. Petitioner has not utilized this opportunity and therefore the facts as

stated in the counter-affidavit of the respondent No.1 have to be accepted by me

as correct. In any case, even if there was rejoinder-affidavit petitioner could not

have disputed his knowledge of the circular dated 16.9.2010 as the signatures of

the petitioner appear in Annexure R-3.

6.           In view of the above, the petitioner has therefore violated the

relevant rules/regulations/guidelines of the respondent No.1 for availing LTC

travel and thus respondent No.1 was justified in seeking to recover the amount

from the salary of the petitioner.       Of course, so far as any issue in the

departmental proceedings is concerned, nothing contained in today's order is a

reflection on merits of the case of either of the parties and the observations made

in this judgment are only for the purpose of the present writ petition. I may note

that the petitioner was given appropriate show cause notice for explaining the
WPC No. 755/2012                                                           Page 3 of 4
 discrepancies with respect to LTC travel and only thereafter respondent No.1

has taken action for recovery of the amount taken by the petitioner in advance

towards LTC travel from the salary of the petitioner.

7.          In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is

accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent No.1.




MAY 09, 2013                                       VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne