RAM KISHAN Vs. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard review Applicant who appears in person.

(2.) For the reasons stated in the MA 568/2012, MA 568/2012 is allowed. The order dated 1.2.2012 passed in the RA 428 of 2011, whereby the Review Application was dismissed in default and for non -prosecution, is recalled and the OA is restored to its original position. RA No.428 of 2011 This RA has been moved by respondent no.3 in the OA No.225 of 2011 requesting this Tribunal to review its order dated 30.8.2011 passed in the OA referred to above.

(3.) Dispute in the OA between the parties related to payment of interest on delayed payment of leave encashment of 128 days after delay of three years and six months. The said OA was allowed vide order dated 30.8.2011 by directing the respondents to pay interest at the same rate which is payable to GPF deposit for the period for which leave encashment has been delayed beyond three years from the date of retirement. In the OA, the applicant had also impleaded Shri Ashok Golas, as respondent no.3 and review applicant in these proceedings, holding him responsible for the delay in releasing the balance amount of leave encashment. One of the reliefs sought by the applicant in the OA has been that the respondent no.1, namely, Chief Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, be directed to take action against the respondent no.3, the review applicant in the present proceedings. This was controverted by the respondent no.3 in the OA in his reply, claiming that he had acted in the interest of administration as per the applicable rules without any personal grudge against the applicant and accordingly, prayed that OA be dismissed with costs. He had also prayed for a formal inquiry by the CBI to be ordered forthwith in the scam of fraudulent claims in BSNL that are costing BSNL aprox. Rs.4,000 crores per annum, holding the applicant responsible for getting the commuted leave sanctioned on the basis of forged medical certificate. It appears that the applicant as well as the respondent no.3 in the OA seems to have personal differences against each other. Notwithstanding that, the said OA was disposed of without going into the insinuations leveled by two against each other and decision under consideration in the OA was exclusively dealt with on the basis of rule position and case law on the subject. Yet the review applicant has filed this RA seeking review of that order for the reason that the same rewards the applicant despite the established fact of his making fraudulent claim by using forged medical certificates. Besides, the review applicant has adduced the following grounds for review of the judgment of the Tribunal in OA No.225/2011: - (I) That the Applicant did not come to the Honble Tribunal with clean hands as he knowingly committed the fraudulent act of using forged medical certificate. That Respondent no.3 had averred in detail paragraph 18 of his counter reply about the fraudulent act of the Applicant in using forged medical certificates based on the report received from the competent medical authorities. That Respondent no.1 connived with the Applicant due to misplaced notion of compassion. That Respondent no.1 who had overruled the Respondent no.3 after his superannuation did not choose to file a counter reply as Respondent no.1 found it expedient not to explain his act of misfeasance in willfully ignoring the fact of fraudulent claim by the Applicant based on forged medical certificates as declared by the competent medical authorities. That the Applicant willfully did not aver about the genuineness of the forged medical certificates used by him in his O.A. as well his Rejoinder (Refer Annexure RA4). That knowingly using forged medical certificates and passing the same as genuine is a criminal offence. That no one can benefit from such criminal acts. That accordingly the leave encashment for 128 days as well as the interest thereon would not be payable to the Applicant as the same rewards the Applicant for his criminal acts.