AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The order dated 9.3.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, in Original application No. 411/2008 is called in question in this writ petition. By the impugned order the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short ''the CAT''] allowed the application filed by the 2nd respondent herein and consequently quashed the order passed by the Central Silk Board dated 10.07.2008 under which recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,14,978/- was sought to be made from the 2nd respondent. In other words, the Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the Central Silk Board to recover the amount from the 2nd respondent herein.
Records reveal that the 2nd respondent while working as Research Assistant in the Office of Central Sericulture Research and Training Institute, Mysore, applied to the University of Mysore for pursuing her studies in Ph.D in Applied Botony; the appellants sanctioned study leave in favour of the 2nd respondent on 15.09.1993; consequently the 2nd respondent executed a bond as required under Rule 63 of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 on 23.9.1993 and on the same day the respondent was relieved from duties in order to pursue her studies in Ph.D; the respondent reported to Mysore University to do her PHD on 24.09.1993. It is relevant to note that the order of sanction by the petitioners herein granting study leave for doing Ph.D in favour of the respondent dated 15.09.1993 specified that the study leave was for a period 2 years from the date of the study leave granted subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the respondent should execute the bond as required under Rule 53(4) of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules'' for short). Accordingly the bond came to be executed as per Annexure-A3 by the respondent. The relevant clause of the bond reads thus:--
"NOW THE CONDITION OF THE ABOVE WRITTEN OBLIGATION IS THAT in the event of my failing to resume duty, or resigning or retiring from service or otherwise quitting service without returning to duty after the expiry or termination of the period of study leave (or failing to complete the course of study) or at any time within a period of three years after my return to duty. I shall forthwith pay to the Board or, as may be directed by the Board, on demand the said sum of Rs. 1,00, 860/- (Rupees one lakh eight hundred and sixty only) together with interest thereon from the date of demand at Government rates for the time being in force on Government loans."
(Emphasis supplied)
Unfortunately the 2nd respondent did not complete her Ph.D Course till the year 2008. Ultimately the order passed by the petitioners herein on 10.07.2008 directing the 2nd respondent to refund the salary paid in her favour to an extent of Rs. 3,81,073/- during the period of two years of study leave. The said order dated 10.07.2008 was questioned by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 411/2008 which came to be allowed on 9.3.2011 by the impugned order.
The Tribunal has further directed the 2nd respondent to refund the amounts, which are already collected from the petitioners, pursuant to the order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the petitioners.
Sri Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners taking us through the material on record submits that though study leave was granted in favour of the 2nd respondent w.e.f. 15.9.1993 she could not complete her Ph.D course till the year 2008; the reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent for not completing Ph.D course within reasonable period are unacceptable; the 2nd respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage of her own fault of not completing the course though 15 years have elapsed. Drawing the attention of the Court to the document at Annexure-A28 dated 28.4.2008 i.e., letter issued by the guide under whom the respondent was pursuing her Ph.D course, contends that the said guide has clarified that the 2nd respondent needs further two years time more to complete the Ph.D course from 28.4.2008. Thus it is clear that the respondent was not in a position to complete Ph.D Course though more than 15 years had elapsed. Hence the order of the Tribunal needs to be quashed; that the 2nd respondent cannot be shown any leniency and that the 2nd respondent is bound by the bond executed by her as well as the relevant rules.
Per contra, Sri Ranganath S. Jois, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent supporting the impugned order contended that the 2nd respondent has faced number of unforeseen circumstances, while pursuing the Ph.D Course; that the professor who was to guide her to complete Ph.D Course retired in the meanwhile, and therefore, he could not continue as guide as per the Mysore University Rules; that the 2nd respondent suffered open heart surgery in the year 1996 and she was taking treatment intermittently between 1996 to 2001; immediately after recovery from the illness she applied to the Mysore University requesting the University to provide her another guide to pursue her Ph.D Course w.e.f. 1.1.2004. According to her, she has completed the Ph.D Course prior to the passing of the order dated 10.07.2008 by the petitioners directing the 2nd respondent to refund the amount of salary received by her.
Before proceeding further it is relevant to note the relevant rules, which governs the subject on hand. Rule 53 of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972 deals with sanction of study leave. Rule 53(4) reads thus:--
"53 (4) (a) Every Government servant in permanent employ who has been granted study leave or extension of such study leave shall be required to execute a Bond in Form 7 or Form 8, as the case may be, before the study leave or extension of such study leave granted to him commences.
(b) Every Government servant not in permanent employ who has been granted study leave or extension of such study leave shall be required to execute a Bond in Form 9 or Form 10, as the case may be, before the study leave or extension of such study leave granted to him commences.
(c) The Authority competent to grant leave shall send to the Audit Officer a certificate to the effect that the Government servant referred to in clause (a) or clause (B) has executed to requisite bond."
Rule 63 deals with resignation or retirement after completion or non-completion of course of study the same reads thus:--
"63. Resignation or retirement after study leave [or non completion of the course of study]
(1) If a Government servant resigns or retires from service or otherwise quits service without returning to duty after a period of study leave or within a period of three years after such return to duty (or fails to complete the course of study and is thus unable to furnish the certificates as required under sub-rule (5) of Rule 53], he shall be required to refund -
(i) the actual amount of leave salary, Study Allowance, cost of fees, traveling and other expenses, if any, incurred by the Government of India; and
(ii) the actual amount, if any, of the cost incurred by other agencies such as foreign Governments, Foundations and Trusts in connection with the course of study, together with interest thereon at rates for the time being in force on Government loans, from the date of demand, before his resignation is accepted or permission to retire is granted or his quitting service otherwise;"
From the provisions of Rule 53(4) of the Rules, it is clear that the 2nd respondent who sought the study leave was required to execute the bond in Form No. 7 or 8 before the study leave was granted. Accordingly the respondent executed the bond in Form No. 7 as per Annexure A-3. We have already extracted the relevant portion of the said bond in the preceding paragraph No. 2. Rule 63 of the Rules makes it clear that if the Government Servant fails to complete the course of study and is unable to furnish the certificates, he/she shall be required to refund the actual amount of leave salary, study allowance, cost of fees etc., paid to him/her with interest thereon from the date of demand.
In the matter on hand, it is not in dispute that the study leave was sanctioned in favour of the respondent for two years from 17.9.1993; it is also not in dispute that the respondent has executed the bond in Form No. 7 as required in law and she has undertaken to return the pay with interest thereon, if she does not complete her course within the stipulated period, thus the 2nd respondent is not only bound by the undertaking given by her but also is bound by the relevant rules, which governs the service conditions. Since it is mandatory for the employee, who goes on study leave to refund the salary obtained by him/her during the period of study leave, in case if he/she does not complete the required course of study and is unable to produce the evidence of certificate for completion of studies. Thus rightly, the petitioners herein issued an order directing the 2nd respondent to refund the amount as required under the Rules. The said order is interfered with by the Central Administrative Tribunal without assigning proper and valid reasons for coming to the conclusion.
According to the 2nd respondent, the Professor who was a guide in her Ph.D course retired from service somewhere in the year 1993-1994 and therefore, she could not pursue her Ph.D Course any further inasmuch as the Mysore University Rules did not permit the retired professor to go on as a guide during the relevant point of time. According to her subsequently in the year 1996 she fell ill and she suffered open heart surgery and she was intermittently under treatment till the year 2001. Therefore, she filed one more application on 1.1.2004 to the University requesting the University to get herself registered with another guide in a new subject. There is no record to show as to what has happened after 2004, but the fact remains that the respondent has not completed the Ph.D course even in the year 2000 as per Annexure A-28. The document at Annexure A-28 is a letter written by the guide under whom the respondent is pursuing her Ph.D. The said letter dated 28.4.2008 clearly discloses that the 2nd respondent was pursuing her studies even on 28.4.2008 and she requires two more years for completing her Ph.D course. Thus even according to the 2nd respondent it is clear that nothing was done by her to complete her Ph.D course even after she returned from illness on 6.6.2001. According to the 2nd respondent she regained her health on 6.6.2001 she made an application before the University dated 1.1.2004 for getting herself registered with a new guide for doing research as a part time scholar in a new subject. The intervening period from 6.6.2001 to 1.1.2004 has not been explained by her. Even during the period from 1.1.2004 till the 28.4.2008 the respondent could not complete her Ph.D course as is clear from the document at Annexure A-28. The said document at Annexure A-28 further clarifies that the 2nd respondent still needs two more years to complete her Ph.D course. These facts make it amply clear that the 2nd respondent has not pursued her Ph.D course with all seriousness. The reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent before the CAT are clearly unacceptable. However, the Tribunal has wrongly accepted those reasons and took sympathetic view in favour of the 2nd respondent. Such undue sympathy shown by the CAT in favour of the respondent was uncalled for. We do not subscribe to the view of the CAT. At any stretch of imagination, it would be impossible for this Court to subscribe to the view taken by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
Since the respondent is bound by the bond executed by her and since she is bound by the relevant rules mentioned supra governing her study leave, the petitioners were justified in seeking refund of the entire amount of salary paid in favour of the 2nd respondent during the period of study leave. However, the petitioners may be entitled for interest from the date of demand i.e., from 15.9.2001. The document at Annexure A-23 issued by the 2nd petitioner to the 2nd respondent makes it clear that the demand for refund of the leave salary was made by the petitioners on 15.9.2001 for the first time. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for interest on salary as per the rules from 15.09.2001 and not from the earlier date. However by the impugned order, the petitioners have demanded interest on leave salary from 23.9.1993 onwards which is incorrect. Thus the order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the petitioners directing demanding refund of leave salary from the 2nd respondent with interest is modified to the aforementioned extent.
Accordingly we pass following order:--
"a. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.
b. The impugned order passed by the CAT in O.A. No. 411/2008 dated 9.3.2012 stands quashed.
c. The petitioners are entitled to refund of the leave salary of Rs. 1,14,672/- from the respondent, they are also entitled to recovery of interest on leave salary amount as per rules w.e.f. 15.9.2001.
d. After calculation of interest from 15.09.2001, and after deducing the amount, which is already collected from the respondent fresh order shall be issued by the petitioners against the respondent."