MADHU DALELA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the orders dated 08.10.2018 and 22.02.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (CAT/ Tribunal) in R.A. No.65/2018 and O.A. No.721/2018. The Tribunal has rejected the said RA and Original Application preferred by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner had assailed the orders dated 08.06.2016 and 12.06.2017 imposing penalty upon her consequent upon departmental disciplinary inquiry held against her, and affirming the same. The petitioner also assailed the disciplinary proceedings resulting in imposition of penalty upon her.

(2.) The petitioner initially joined the Song & Drama Division of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting as an Actress and thereafter worked as Manager. The petitioner got elevated to the level of Deputy Director on 01.08.2000 and continued on the said post till her retirement on superannuation on 30.06.2017. While posted at Delhi, she was allotted government accommodation, which she occupied on 12.01.2005. Consequently, she was not entitled to draw HRA since 13.01.2005. At the same time, she was liable to pay license fee for the accommodation allotted to her. As per rules, the same was recoverable from her directly by the Pay & Accounts Officer (IRLA). The petitioner, however, continued to draw HRA even after allotment of official accommodation, and no license fee for the accommodation allotted to her was deducted from her salary. This position continued till 2012, only whereafter recovery of overpaid amount of HRA of Rs.6,37,893/- was ordered. She was placed under suspension on 14.10.2013, and eventually, issued the charge memorandum on 11.10.2013 framing two articles of charge against her for violation of Rule 317-B-13 of the F.R. & S.R. read with Rule 3(1) (i) & (ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The substance of the charges framed against her read as follows:

(3.) In the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority, however, issued a disagreement note and called for the petitioner s response. It appears that, at that stage, the petitioner sought to seek information under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and produced certain correspondence, which she claimed to have addressed to the respondents, informing the respondents that she was not entitled to draw HRA. Pertinently, the documents furnished by the petitioner - as received under the RTI Act, were subsequently withdrawn by the authorities, on the premise that they did not form part of the record. In that respect, a separate inquiry is pending.