Original Application No. 200/00158/2014. Case: Rajesh Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application No. 200/00158/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Naveen Kumar Agarwal, Advocate and For Respondents: Kanak Gaharwar, Advocate |
| Judges | G.P. Singhal, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | October 30, 2015 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
G.P. Singhal, Member (Ad.), (Jabalpur Bench)
-
By filing this Original Application the applicant has sought for quashing of impugned orders dated 24.2.2014, 12.2.2014, 22.8.2014 and 23.8.2014 (Annexure A-23, A-24, A-26 and A-27 respectively). Vide order dated 24.2.2014 respondent No. 5 has ordered to deduct an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the salary of the applicant on account of wrong payment of salary made to him for the absent period during November 2004 to December 2006, which has been quantified as Rs. 49,822/-. However, vide order dated 22.8.2014 respondent No. 4 has ordered to deduct an amount of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the salary of the applicant.
-
The applicant while working as Mate under the respondents was issued show cause notices dated 23.4.2010 and 19.8.2013 as to why recovery should not be made from his salary on account of wrong payment made to him for the absence during the period between November 2004 and December 2006. The applicant duly replied stating that he was regularly present in the office for the above period. He sought information and documents in this regard under the Right to Information Act from the respondents, but the same have been denied stating that the relevant documents are not available in the office. However, the respondents have started making recovery from his salary initially @ Rs. 3000/- and subsequently @ Rs. 8000/-. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the action has been taken by the respondents without affording any opportunity of being heard.
-
Heard the learned counsel of parties and carefully perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
-
On perusal of pleadings it is found that the applicant was issued a show cause notice on 23.4.2010 (Annexure A-8) wherein it was stated that he absented himself from duty without permission for 536 days and therefore as to why recovery of pay and allowances already paid for the period of unauthorised absence, should not be made from him. The applicant submitted a reply on 7.5.2010 (Annexure A-9) wherein he had specifically stated that he had performed his duties in the department on the instructions of the respondent No. 4 and he was never absent from duties during the aforesaid period. Thereafter, vide memo dated 20.12.2012 the respondents have intimated the applicant that the Board of Officers re-investigating the matter has decided to provide him opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial