AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed with the following prayers:
(i) To quash and set aside the impugned orders at Annexures ''PA'', ''PB'' and ''PC'' dated 2.3.2002, 28.2.2001 and 31.3.2001 being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional;
(ii) To direct the Respondents not to effect recovery from the salary of the applicant henceforth;
(iii) To grant to the applicant such other consequential relief(s) which the Hon''ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in facts and circumstances of the matter; and
(iv) To direct the Respondents to allow such other attendant service benefits arising out of quashing and setting aside the impugned orders.
In reply, on behalf of the Respondents, the following stand has been taken vide para 3 (iv) on merits:
3(iv). The contents of this para of the application are not admitted to be correct. It is submitted that the order of recoveries has been rightly passed against the applicant by Respondent No. 4 (Manager, P&I) on dated 28.2.2001 as the applicant who happened to be Incharge, M.C.C. Kataula had vide his writing dated 28.2.2001 admitted his negligence & guilt. The copy of the said letter is annexed as Annexure R-1 & its English version is Annexure R-1/2. The allegation of coercion and threat made by the applicant in this sub para are totally wrong & incorrect as the language of the confessional letter dated 28.2.2001 (Annexure R-1) of the applicant itself reflects that it was not a prepared letter by any officer of the Respondent Federation but a confessional letter written by the applicant himself in his own language.
It is wrong and denied that the applicant was coerced to write the letter dated 28.2.2001 as alleged. It is also wrong & denied that the said letter was drafted by Respondent No. 3 at the residence of Respondent No. 4 as alleged. The confessional letter of the applicant dated 28.2.2001 is voluntarily written by the applicant. It is further submitted that if the applicant was under any coercion then why he kept silent for such a long period for more than one year and what prevented him from brining this fact in the notice of the higher authorities of the Respondent Federation more particularly when letters were issued to him vide letter No. HMF/ HQ-IV/P&I/ 15/99-VIII-2606 dated 4.10.2001, letter No. HMF/ HQ-IV/P&I/ 15/99-VIII/2972 dated 3.10.2001 & letter No. HMF/HQ-IV/P&I/15/99-3266 dated 12.11.2001, annexed as Annexures R-2, R-3 & R-4 to explain his conduct but the applicant did not submit the reply and continued to pay the monthly instalments of recovery for a period of more than one year from March, 2001 onward which shows that such allegations are after thought & manipulated by the applicant as such in view of the facts submitted above the recovery as ordered vide Annexure PA, PB & PC is correct and right. Rest of the contents of this para are denied in toto.
Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of the Respondents and reiterating the averments set up in the petition has been filed.
The Petitioner at the relevant time was working as Incharge, Milk Chilling Centre, Kataula of the Respondent-Federation. There were some allegations of embezzlement etc. against the Petitioner to which he filed reply, dated 28.2.2001, Annexure R-1, wherein he admitted liability to the extent of Rs. 1,04,386/-.
At the time of hearing the learned Counsel for the Respondents has made available a copy of letter dated 21.5.2011 sent by the Superintendent of Police, SV &ACB, CR, Mandi, H.P. to the Managing Director of the Respondent-Federation intimating that the Petitioner and some other Officers/officials of the Respondent-Federation have already been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid embezzlement in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Mandi on 31.3.2011 in the case FIR No. 10/02, dated 1.7.2002, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, PS, SV & ACB, Bilaspur.
In view of the above and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present petition at this stage which is accordingly dismissed being without any merit, so also pending applications, if any.