Delhi High Court
T.M. Sampath vs Union Of India & Ors. on 7 September, 2016
$~04.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7519/2016
% Judgment dated 7 th September, 2016
T.M. SAMPATH ..... Petitioner
Through : Petitioner in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC, Mr.Ruchir
Ranjan Rai and Ms.Shreya Sinha,
Advs. for respondent no1.
Mr.A.S. Singh, Adv. for Mr.R.V.
Sinha, Adv. for respondent no.2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 27.7.2016 passed by
Central Administrative Tribunal (in short „the Tribunal‟) in OA
No.1706/2015, whereby the Tribunal, while allowing the OA filed by
the petitioner, has not awarded any costs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed
as a Stenographer, Grade II, in the respondent organization/NWDA in
the year 1984. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Stenographer, Grade I, in the year 1990; to the post of Private Secretary
in the year 1992; and to the post of Administrative Officer in the year
2001.
3. As per the petitioner, in the year 2002, he made a complaint to the
Central Vigilance Commission against one, Sh.R.K. Jain, Chief
Engineer (Headquarters), who was holding the additional charge of
CVO, as Sh.R.K. Jain was involved in making illegal appointments to
the post of LDC by accepting illegal gratification, due to which Sh.R.K.
Jain spoiled his APAR for the period 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-
2014. The petitioner challenged the action of Sh.R.K. Jain by filing OA
No.1706/2015. In the meanwhile, petitioner superannuated from
service on 31.7.2015. Post his retirement, the petitioner has settled in
Bangalore. On 14.12.2015, the petitioner filed MA seeking permission
of the Tribunal to file an additional affidavit. The said application was
allowed by the Tribunal. The petitioner thereafter filed PT No.2/2016
before the Tribunal seeking transfer of OA No.1706/2015 to Central
Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore on the ground that he is living in
Bangalore after his retirement, he has no source of income and he is
facing financial hardship due to which he is unable to bear travel
expenses and expenses for stay in Delhi. The Tribunal rejected the
request of the petitioner vide order dated 18.2.2016. Aggrieved by the
rejection, the petitioner filed MA No.2420/2016 in the disposed of OA
No.1706/2015 seeking modification of the order limited to the grant of
costs in the sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs. The said MA was dismissed by the
Tribunal on 10.8.2016. Aggrieved by rejection of the MA, the
petitioner filed the present writ petition for imposing of costs of
Rs.2.00 lakhs on respondents no.3 and 4 for spoiling his APAR due to
personal vengeance.
4. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that his grievance is that
while the Tribunal by the order dated 27.7.2016 has allowed the OA
and held that APAR of the petitioner for the year 26.8.2011 to
16.1.2012 has become non est in the eyes of law and it has to be
ignored for all purposes, and for the APAR of the petitioner for the
period 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013 the Tribunal held that the remarks of the
Reviewing Officer deserves to be expunged, but no costs was awarded
to him. Petitioner further submits that the MA filed by him seeking
modification of the order dated 27.7.2016 was also dismissed by the
Tribunal on the ground that the author of the order dated 27.7.2016 has
become functus officio and, thus, could not entertain the MA. The
petitioner also submits that he is presently residing in Bangalore, he is
suffering from diabetes and is also facing acute financial hardship. It is
contended by the petitioner that on account of his financial hardship, he
is unable to bear the travel expenses, expenses qua stay in Delhi and
contest the matter.
5. Notice. Learned counsel for the respondents enter appearance on an
advance copy and accept notice.
6. We have heard, the petitioner, who appears in person and counsel for
the respondents and also carefully examined the order dated 27.7.2016
passed by the Tribunal in the OA and the order dated 10.8.2016 passed
by the Tribunal in the MA.
7. We may notice that while allowing the OA, the Tribunal had ordered
that there would be no order as to costs. Subsequently, the petitioner
filed MA, claiming costs of Rs.2.00 lakhs, which was also dismissed by
the Tribunal vide order dated 10.8.2016, relevant portion of which
reads as under:
"MA No.2420/2016
This MA has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"In view of the above submissions and circumstances and
in the interest of justice, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to
impose a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- on respondent Nos.3 & 4 and in
favour of applicant.
May also pass any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper
to meet the ends of justice."
It is seen that OA No.1706/2015 was decided by my order
dated 27.07.2016, operative part of which reads as follows:
8. I, therefore, allow this OA and hold that
APAR of the applicant for the period
26.08.2011 to 16.01.2012 has become nonest
in the eyes of law and has to be ignored for
all purposes. As far as, APAR for the year
01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 is concerned, the
remarks of the Reviewing Officer deserve to
expunge. Ordered accordingly. This benefit
may be given to the applicant within a period
of sixty days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. There shall be no
order as to cost."
I have specifically ordered that there shall be no order as
to cost. After having passed this order, I have become functus
officio and now cannot entertain any MA to modify the aforesaid
order.
In view of the aforesaid, this MA is dismissed."
8. At this stage, the petitioner who appears in person, submits that at least
symbolic costs be awarded if not actual costs keeping in view that he is
living in Bangalore after his retirement, he has no source of income and
he is facing financial hardship due to which he is unable to bear travel
expenses and expenses for stay in Delhi
9. Having regard to the submissions made, the order dated 10.8.2016
passed in OA is modified and the order dated 27.7.2016 passed in OA
is modified to the extent that respondents no.3 and 4 shall pay costs of
Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner.
10. Writ petition stands disposed of in view of above.
G.S.SISTANI, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
SEPTEMBER 07, 2016
msr
