Allowed

Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Surender Kumar

Delhi HC13 Nov 2019W.P.(C)/1237/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting a representation regarding LTC recovery. The writ petition allowed for the issuance of a show cause notice to the respondent. Recovery was directed to be suspended pending a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal's order set aside; Petitioner directed to issue show cause notice; Recovery suspended for two weeks after final order.

Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs Surender Kumar — Property and Title | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Judgment : 13^th November, 2019

¶4

- W.P.(C) 1237/2019 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms.Rachana Srivastava, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

SURENDER KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Mr.Harkesh, Mr.Bhanu Gupta and Mr.Nikunj Arora, Advts.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

¶9

G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

¶10

C.M.5605/2019 (delay in refiling)

¶11

The present application has been filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay of 16 days in re-filing the present writ petition.

¶12

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in re-filing the writ petition is condoned.

¶13

The application stands disposed of.

¶14

C.M.5604/2019 (additional documents)

¶15

Additional documents be taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

The application stands disposed of.

¶17

W.P.(C) 1237/2019

¶18

Challenge in this petition is to order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’).

¶19

W.P.(C) 1237/2019

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that the respondent herein travelled from Delhi to Bagdogra along with his wife and two children in the year 2014. A bill, along with the copies of the air tickets, was submitted as the respondent was entitled to LTC. The bills were cleared in the year 2014 itself. However, subsequently, the respondent received a communication from the petitioner, which we reproduce below:

¶22

“Compliance/Action taken report along with schedules may be submitted to this office urgently, since the information is required by PHQ/MHA urgently, as also timeline for completion of LTC recovery from employees as asked by MHA/PHQ.

¶23

(Jagjit Singh Sangwan) For Dy. Commissioner of Police, West District, Delhi.

¶24

Encl : As above.

¶25

No.430/Acctt/LTC/West Dated Delhi the 25.08.2017 Copy to: PA to CP for kind information please.

¶26

(Jagjit Singh Sangwan) For Dy. Commissioner of Police, West District, Delhi.

¶27

Copy forwarded to AF/Shift ‘A’ to direct HC Surender Kumar 71/F (1184/W) to deposit a sum of Rs.56,744/- on account of inadmissible amount of LTC at Account Branch/West Distt. Immediately otherwise the same will be recovered from his salary or he may be directed to attend Account Branch for any clarification.

¶28

Sd/For Foreigner Regd. Office, New Delhi”

¶29

Aggrieved by this communication received by him an OA was filed which has been allowed by the Tribunal, which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

¶30

W.P.(C) 1237/2019

¶31

Page 2 of 4

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two documents, being the information received from SpiceJet airlines with regard to the cost of tickets. These documents have been placed on record along with an application seeking to take additional documents on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such documents were procured earlier but they did not form part of the record of the Tribunal.

¶33

Mr.Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondent submits that prior to making deductions, no show cause notice was given and no opportunity was given to the respondent to explain his case. Counsel further states that the respondent had provided the boarding cards, air tickets and bill of the agent from where the tickets were purchased. It is submitted that principles of natural justice should have been followed by the petitioners.

¶34

We have heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶35

The petitioner relies on two very important documents which were not placed on the record before the Tribunal. There is no explanation rendered for this lapse. We also find that prior to passing an order regarding rejection, no opportunity was given to the respondent to explain as to why the deductions should not be made. The case set-up by the petitioner herein before the Tribunal was that the respondent did not comply with the office memorandum as per which while availing LTC journey the air tickets are to be purchased either directly from the airlines (ticket counter/website of airlines) or by utilizing the service of Authorized Travel Agents viz. M/s Balmer Lawrie and Company, M/s Ashok Travel and Tours and IRCTC (to the extent IRCTC is authorized

¶36

W.P.(C) 1237/2019

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

as per DoPT’s O.M. No.31011/6/2002-Estt (A) dated 02.12.2009). Booking of tickets through other agencies is not permitted.

¶39

Taking into consideration that prior to seeking recovery, the respondent was not put to notice and no reasons for recovery were communicated, which is evident from reading the note which was provided to the respondent, which we have extracted hereinabove, we set aside the order of the Tribunal.

¶40

We direct the petitioner to issue a show cause notice to the respondent and to give an opportunity of filing reply; and thereafter pass a reasoned order.

¶41

No recovery will be made from the respondent until two weeks after passing of the final order.

¶42

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

C.M.5602/2019 (stay)

¶44

The application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ petition.

¶45

G.S. SISTANI, J

¶46

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶47

NOVEMBER 13, 2019 rb

¶48

W.P.(C) 1237/2019

¶49

Page 4 of 4

Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Surender Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Surender Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bal Kishan Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Vedpal & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ex. Hc/Gd Vijay Pal Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ex. Ct/Gd Sohan Lal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shri Aalok Khanna and Ors. Vs Standard Chartered Bank

Simons Motor Driving Training Institute & Research Society Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Budh Sagar Vs Staff Selection Commission through Its Chairman & Ors.

Neeraj Syal Vs State Bank of India

Gorkha Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dr. Baba Sahebambedkar Hospital through Its Medical Superintendent & Anr.

M/S Shri Tirumalesa Roadlines Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Indo Bright Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Joginder and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Mool Chandra Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Vanvir Singh and Anr. Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.