EAPAN VETTATH EAPAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.11.2015 for effecting reimbursement of Rs.10,000/- and also to pay penal interest and costs.

(2.) The petitioner-in-person, while serving as Assistant Director of Horticulture in Anaimali under deputation, was sent for training along with one Tmt.Vasanthi to IIVR, Varanasi, from Coimbatore in December, 2013 and he was also paid with Tour Advance, but the Deputy Director of Horticulture, in violation of procedures/rules, ordered recovery of his Travelling Allowance without even issuing notice asking for explanation as to why the tour advance received by the petitioner should not be recovered. Even before he undertook the tour from Coimbatore to IIVR, Varanasi, the petitioner initially asked for Tour Advance, but the Deputy Director of Horticulture/first respondent failed to respond to his request and finally deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in his account, only after he reached Varanasi and underwent the said training. Since the petitioner was provided with Travelling Allowance on the last day of training, he approached the first respondent for returning back the Tour Advance for Travelling Allowance. In reply, the first respondent directed the petitioner to pay it after deducting the claim of the whole month's Travelling Allowance bill which will be adjusted from the amount and balance amount to be paid back to the Treasury Account, as per the Rules.

(3.) Pursuant to the instructions given by the first respondent, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.6,438/- after getting the signature of the Assistant Treasury Officer, Coimbatore on the top of Challan No.0486 dated 27.01.2014 and entrusted the third copy of the challan to the first respondent, which was also accepted by the first respondent without raising any objection. The first respondent, instead of producing the challan in the Annual Audit, purposively concealed the same, resulting in the Audit Group raising objection in Para 1 of the year 2013-2014. In view of the mistake committed by the first respondent, which was done purposively, the petitioner was constrained to pay back the entire amount and as as result, the Audit Group also, while inspecting the records of the first respondent, finding that the first respondent has failed to produce the Challan, has raised an objection as regards shortage of Rs.10,000/-.