KULAMANI SWAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench dated 28th May, 1998 passed in O.A. No.801 of 1995 rejecting the petitioners application for appropriate order against the opp.parties for refund of Rs.85,600/ - has been challenged.

(2.) UNDISPUTED fact leading to this writ petition is as follows : - The petitioner was working as Sub -Inspector (Phones) just before his voluntary retirement. He proceeded on long leave on medical ground and thereafter applied for retirement on the ground of his ill -health. The authorities on being satisfied about the genuineness of the ground of indisposition of health allowed him to be superannuated with effect from 30.4.1991. Since the opp.parties did not grant him retiral benefits, the petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal in O.A. No.70 of 1993 for releasing his retiral benefits along with interest. The Tribunal, however, found that the opp.parties were justified in not disbursing the retiral benefits before "no due certificate" coold be granted to him. The petitioner, thereafter filed another application in M.A. No. 148 of 1994 claiming for a direction to finalise the contemplated Disciplinary Proceeding and also a further direction to release his retiral benefits. His application was disposed of with a direction to release the provisional pension to the applicant within sixty days. When the Department did not even after such order release the retiral benefits, the petitioner filed another application for appropriate direction and accordingly, provisional pension was fixed. Out of D.C.R.G. and Dearness relief, an amount of Rs.85,600/ - was withheld on the ground that from the Audit report it was noticed that the petitioner failed to hand over the complete and full charge to his successor although he had taken certain materials worth Rs. 85,600/ - while he was in the office.

(3.) THE petitioner on the contrary has taken a stand that he had returned those articles to his successor Muralidhar Sahoo under two vouchers dated 20.10.1990 and 8.5.1991. But the Department has deliberately omitted those two documents while fixing up the liability against the petitioner. The Tribunal while disposing of the case also considered the stand taken by the petitioner, who, however, was not inclined to place any reliance on the ground that the opp.parties have denied to have received such documents.