ARUP KUMAR CHAKRABORTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while serving as a Drilling in-charge (in short, 'DIC'), Central Ground Water Board (in short, 'CGWB' (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent Board'), Ministry of Central Water Resources, Division XV, Kolkata, submitted a travelling allowance bill (in short, 'TA bill') for the months of October and November, 2000. In the TA bill, so submitted, the petitioner had claimed, in respect of the month of October, 2000, travelling allowance (in short, 'TA') from 19.10.2000 to 29.10.2000. Since, according to the respondent Board, it was detected that the petitioner had claimed TA for the period from 19.10.2000 to 29.10.2000, while he had actually left the camp on 24.10.2000 and ought not to have, therefore, claimed TA for the period from 24.10.2000 to 29.10.2000, the petitioner was served by the respondent Board with a Office Memo., dated 25.04.2001, intimating him and asking his reply regarding submission of bogus and fictitious TA bill. On receipt of the said Office Memo., the petitioner tendered his apology, vide his letter, dated 07.05.2001, giving an explanation that he had submitted the TA bill inadvertently since he had left his personal diary at the work site, at Patna, and with the said reply, dated 07.05.2001, the petitioner also submitted a rectified TA bill in respect of his said official tour. While apologizing by his reply to the said memorandum, the petitioner also admitted, as indicated hereinbefore, that he had already submitted rectified TA bills in the sense that he (i.e., the petitioner) had earlier claimed TA from 19.10.2000 to 29.10.2000; whereas, he had actually left the camp on 24.10.2000 and the rectification of the TA bill, made by the petitioner, was that he modified his claim for TA bill for the period from 19.10.2000 to 24.10.2000 instead of 19.10.2000 to 29.10.2000.

(2.) As the petitioner's reply failed to satisfy the disciplinary authority, the petitioner was served with a Memorandum of Charge, dated 26.02.2002, directing him to show cause against the memorandum of charge, the allegation in the Memorandum of Charge being to the effect that the petitioner had made false and fictitious claim in his TA bill by claiming TA for the period from 25.10.2000 to 29.10.2000.

(3.) The Article of Charge read as under: