HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The petitioner, who had been serving the capacity as Technical Assistant Grade-I (TA Grade-I) came to be proceeded against departmentally in an inquiry for certain misconduct attributed to him. Originally the punishment meted out to him by the disciplinary authority on 13/15.06.1988 came to be modified by the order of the Chairman insofar as it related to quantum of punishment. By the Chairman's order, the initial punishment of recovery of some loss subject to a maximum of one year salary was sustained but the reversion from Grade-I to Grade-III was modified to TA Grade-I to TA Grade-II. The final order by the Chairman contained other details as well that he would earn increments for 5 years after which, he would be placed in the regular scale with increments. He was also entitled to be considered for promotion. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had retired in the same post as TA Grade-II after the reversion order on 31.01.2004. In the manner of working out the retiral benefits, the respondents found that the petitioner had been paid in excess of what he was entitled to by way of salary by applying a wrong scale of pay and an amount of Rs.span 1,63,543.00 was found as the amount paid in excess. An amount of Rs.span 27,721/- was deducted from the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner and a demand had been made for balance of Rs.span 1,35,820.00. This was challenged by means of writ petition and the Court had directed that a speaking order to be passed, which reiterated the order directing certain recoveries. It is this latter order, which is in challenge in the present writ petition. The petition also contains an objection to the nonconsideration of the petitioner's claim to promotion. This plea made by the petitioner had also been rejected, which according to the learned is vague in its reasoning.

(2.) The impugned order of punishment was originally issued on 13/15.06.1988 and was modified by the order of the Chairman on 02.05.2002. The operative order of the Chairman insofar as it is relevant for the petitioner is reproduced:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 5 year period, which operated to prevent him from earning increments as well as promotion ought to operate at the latest from the first order of punishment issued on 13/15.06.1988 and, therefore, he should have been considered for promotion after 13/15.06.1993 but he had been retained in the post as TA Grade-II till the time of his retirement on 31.01.2004. The other objection is that the alleged higher scales applied to the petitioner as a justifying ground for ordering recovery is untenable since he should have been paid even a higher scale after promoting him to a still higher post after the bar against the consideration for promotion after 5 years ceased. Consequently, there was no scope for ordering any recovery or deducting any sum from the gratuity amount.