ATUL BHARDWAJ Vs. SHAHEED SUKHDEV COLLEGE & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(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. 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 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.