KHAZANA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Khanzana Ram has appealed under clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition and holding the order of compulsory retirement against him to be free from any such infirmity as may be set right on a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) To state briefly the facts relevant for our purpose, the petitioner appellant was recruited as a clerk in 1944 and was transferred in the end of 1957 from Simla to the Government of India Press, Nasik Road. The trouble centres round the travelling allowance charged by him at the time of transfer. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to travelling allowance for the members of his family which, on his calculation would come to Rs. 246.63 np., but he submitted a bill only for Rs. 24.32 np. on 17th September, 1958. As is obvious from the order of the learned Single Judge, and it has not been disputed before us admittedly, the appellant did not claim the actual, expenditure and according to him he did not consider it worthwhile giving all the details of road and train journey in the bill and merely charged on the basis of travel in train by first class from simla to Nasik Road. The authorities concerned frlt that the travelling allowance had been overcharged by the appellant. An enquiry was held against him on the basis of two charges, but we are only concerned at this state with charge No. 1 which reads as under :-

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had raised the following contentions as is obvious from the impugned order :--