UNION OF INDIA Vs. P K MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 27.08.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in OA No.1600/2007 and MA No. 1152/2008, whereby the original application filed by P.K.Mathur, the respondent herein, was allowed.

(2.) Briefly stating, the facts of this case are that the respondent is an officer of 1975 batch of the Central Engineering Service (CES). He was posted as Executive Engineer at Bhopal from 24.06.1991 to 31.03.1995. On 05.06.2003 the respondent received a show cause notice, the gist of which was that the respondent passed and paid the 4th RA Bill amounting to Rs. 95,618/- on 23.10.1991 to M/s Veena Construction on 23.10.1991, in which excess length of 1616.66 metre of barbed wired fencing was wrongly taken into account and excess payment of Rs.1,61,666/- was made to the Contractor. It was further alleged that in the bill submitted to the respondent through the Divisional Accounts Branch contained many cuttings and corrections and even the length of an item in the agreement, which was originally 621.25 metre was made 1621.5 metre by adding "1" in red ink. It was alleged that because of the overwriting, cutting and crossings etc. the amount of the bill was increased by rupees one lakh. Further, it was alleged that while making payment of the 4th RA Bill, a secured advance of Rs. 35,100/- on some quantity of barbed wire allowed in the 3rd RA Bill, was allowed to continue and was not recovered from the contractor. Lastly, it was alleged that the respondent exhibited gross negligence while conducting test checks during his visit to the site after the receipt of the bill in the Divisional Office and paid provisional rates which did not commensurate with the quantum of work done at site.

(3.) The respondent by his letter dated 01.09.2003 asked for the Measurement Books (MBs) numbers 1483, 1549, 1906, 1649 and 1539 and the Third RA Bill paid to the Contractor. The Vigilance Unit of the Central Vigilance Department informed the respondent by its letter dated 30.09.2003 that "(T)he records demanded by you for inspection are not considered relevant for the explanation called". On 05.12.2003 the respondent gave a reply to the Central Vigilance Department, in which, inter alia, the following was mentioned: