SARNI GIRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Sarni Giri was posted as Audit Officer (Comn.) in the office of Accountant General, Sikkim, Ganglok vide order dated 27th Aug., 1982. Before that, he was serving as a Resident Audit Officer, HSCL, Bokaro Steel City under respondent No. 3, Shri T. K. Krishna Das, Member, Audit Eoard and Ex officio Director of Commercial Audit, Ranchi Region. He was placed under suspension by the Offire of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India vide order dated 17th Dec., 1982 in exercise of the powers conferred by subrule (1) of R. 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him. The petitioner has, by this writ petition filed on 20-7-84, challenged the suspension order on the ground that no reasons for the suspension have been given to him till now in violation of the Government of India Instructions.

(2.) The petitioner was communicated some adverse remarks in his Confidential Report by respondent No- 3, Shri T. K. Krishna Das on 18-1-83. Thereafter, he made several requests for the disclosure of the names of the Reporting Officer and the Countersigning Authority; but the names were not intimated on the ground that it was not a normal practice to intimate the names. In this regard, the petitioner claimed the relief of the disclosure of the names of the Reporting Officer and the Countersigning Authority and also for quashing the adverse remarks. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, conceded that at the present moment the petitioner had no claim regarding this relief and made a request for leaving the matter open. It is, therefore unnecessary to discuss the facts regarding this relief.

(3.) The petitioner had taken certain advances from HSCL Bokaro Steel Management and in the last Pay Certificate of the petitioner a sum of Rs. 27,825.00was shown as recoverable. The petitioner contended that since the amount due was not a Government due, it was not recoverable by the Government and claimed relief for the payment of full salary with interest. In this regard also, learned counsel for the petitioner claimed no relief, for the present.