LAWS(MPH)-2015-8-79

YAGYA NARAYAN PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On August 25, 2015
Yagya Narayan Patel Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working in the postal department at Rewa. While working on the post of Postal Assistant, petitioner was served with a charge -sheet dated 18.9.2007 under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and allegations were made with regard to misappropriation of amount of deposits made by the customers in their Recurring Deposit (RD) Accounts, Saving Accounts etc. In all there was a difference of more than Rs.6,55,016.55. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - on 16.1.2006 and thereafter a charge -sheet was initiated against him. Ultimately the petitioner retired from service and as the respondents were required to seek approval from the President of the Department under rule 9 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to conduct the inquiry, the matter was referred to the President and the President on 15.11.2011 did not grant approval and therefore proceedings were dropped. After the proceedings were dropped the petitioner contends that departmental enquiry pending against him was closed, but no action was taken to refund the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ - deposited by him. When this amount was not refunded, an application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal under section 19 of the Arbitration Tribunals Act and the same having being dismissed, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that, as the petitioner was deposited the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ - on pressure and threat of the Superintendent of the department, now when the entire departmental proceedings are dropped, this amount should be refunded.

(3.) RESPONDENTS refute the aforesaid and contend that when the matter travelled to the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal considered the matter and in paras 12 and 13 recorded the following findings refuting to refund the amount to the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. Para 12 and 13 of the said findings reads as under: