UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHANDAN DAS VAISHNAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Indian is directed against the impugned order dtd. 21/11/2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') in Original Application No.203/01141/2018, whereby the original application filed by the sole respondent therein has been allowed and the petitioners / Union of India have directed to refund of an amount of Rs.17,40,000.00deposited by the respondent herein within a period of 90 days, failing which, the petitioners would be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8% thereafter.

(2.) The respondent herein was working as Branch Post Mastar, Siltara, Takhatpur and it was the case of the respondent herein that he was issued a letter by the competent authority on 5/2/2015 alleging excess payment of Rs.17,00,000.00 to the beneficiaries of various Government Schemes and to deposit the same in the office, otherwise criminal proceedings would be initiated against him. He, thereafter, under the threat and coercion, deposited a sum of Rs.17,00,000.00 on 10/2/2015 and also deposited an amount of Rs.40,000.00 on some other date. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued on 15/6/2018 for excess payment of Rs.4,860.00 and ultimately, after departmental enquiry, he was removed from service on 31/3/2021, against which the departmental appeal has been preferred by him, which is still pending. Meanwhile, the respondent herein had filed an application under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1985') claiming refund of Rs.17,40,000.00 along with 18% interest, which has been allowed and against which, instant writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India / petitioners submits that application for refund of an amount of Rs.17,40,000.00 before the Tribunal in terms of Sec. 3(q) read with Ss. 14(1) and 19 of the Act of 1985 was not maintainable. Even otherwise, the respondent herein had paid an amount of Rs.17,00,000.00 on 10/2/2015 as well as Rs.40,000.00 on some other date and an application was filed on 19/9/2018, which has become barred by limitation, therefore, the original application was not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.