Union Of India And Ors vs G.S. Rathore

Mohammad Rafiq, J

This writ petition has been filed by the petitionersUnion of India assailing judgment dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby Original Application filed by the respondent has been allowed.

The respondent in the Original Application challenged the recovery notice dated 07.08.2012 issued by the petitioners by which amount of Rs. 6,60,852/- along with interest was ordered to be recovered from the respondent. The respondent was sanctioned one year's study leave from 01.10.2010 to 30.09.2011 to enable him to pursue two years' MBA Course on regular basis. The duration of the course was two years, the respondent applied for extension of the leave by one more year vide application dated 04.08.2011 and subsequent reminder dated 05.09.2011. Since the leave was not extended, the respondent under compulsion had to join the duties on 03.10.2011. It is thereafter that the appellant-department vide letter dated 11.10.2011 required the respondent to submit necessary documents such as performance sheet, results and other materials of the first year of study leave so that the request for extension of study leave may be considered. The respondent submitted copy of certificate dated 16.12.2011 issued by the college relating to his performance during the first year of the course. Despite that, the appellant issued notice dated 07.08.2012 to the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,60,852/- along with interest. The respondent submitted representation on 17.08.2012, which too was rejected vide order dated 28.08.2012.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

The Tribunal, while allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent, in para 5 of the judgment observed as under:

"5. While grant of study leave for the second year of the two year course cannot be treated as a matter of right, the exercise of discretion in the matter of grant of study leave for the second year of a two year course also has to be based on fair and reasonable grounds. Given that the applicant's performance was certified as being satisfactory during the first year of the course, there appears to be no substantive reason on record to indicate why the respondent authorities did not enable him to complete the course in question by issuing the necessary sanction in time. The explanation afforded for this that the applicant submitted a bond wrongly referring to the month of September as having thirty one days is flimsy at best as the error appears to be typographical rather than substantive. Be that as it may, not having issued the necessary enabling sanction for extension of study leave, they cannot now hold the applicant at fault for not completing the course because this appears to be the direct result of the respondents' own action rather than being any fault of the applicant. The recovery envisioned by the aforementioned note to rule 14 clearly appears to be indicated for a case where the applicant does not complete the course of study due to his own fault. In the present case, the applicant has furnished a certificate of satisfactory performance for one year of study which the respondents allowed him against the two year course. As such therefore, it would be manifestly unjust for any claim to be made to the effect that it was the applicant's fault that he did not complete the course when it is clear from the record and the admission of the respondents themselves that he was not granted the necessary extension of leave in order to do so. As the applicant did not overstay the period of leave granted in substantive terms and continues to serve with the respondents after rejoining duties, there appears to be no justification for visiting him with the recovery demand in question."

Perusal of the reasons assigned by the Tribunal would show that the respondent could not complete the course only because the petitioners declined to extend the leave. Rule 14 of the Study Leave Rules in the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume-I provides for recovery in a situation where the applicant does not complete the course due to his/her own fault. In the present case, however, the respondent cannot be said to be at fault. In our view, learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent.

There is no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

Stay Application No. 15047/2019 also stands dismissed.