1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1174 OF 2002 Sat Pal Thapar .....Petitioner V/s. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.M.P.Vashi i/by M.P.Vashi & Associates, for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar, for respondent No.2. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : JULY 09, 2009 P.C. 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay, dated 29-01-2001, by which the Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Application is barred by limitation. 2. The petitioner is a retired employee. While he was in service, he was subjected to a departmental inquiry. The petitioner was subjected to a chargesheet on the ground that while functioning as Head Clerk at Local Office, Madanpura, during 21-10-1991 to 06-03-1995, he carried out one permanent disablement benefit (PDB) entry in respect of 2 Insured Person Shri Rama Sela from one register (NC-4) to a new register (NC-6). While carrying forward this entry, the petitioner failed to remark “carried forward” in the old register, which resulted in carrying forward of an entry to another register, and thereby double payment of Rs.11,018/- was made to Shri Rama Sela for the period from 01-01-1992 to 31-07-1995. 3. It is the case of the Department that in reply to the aforesaid chargesheet, the petitioner vide his letter dated 15-04-1997 admitted that the entries were carried forward by him but there was no malafide intention or omission in not mentioning “carried forward” in the register. The petitioner was subjected to regular departmental inquiry and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 04-03-1998 by holding that the chargesheet has not been proved, nor it has been disproved. Accordingly, it was not possible for him to arrive at any conclusion. The disciplinary authority however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, found that the charges are held to have been proved. The disciplinary authority has given detailed reasons in coming to the aforesaid conclusion in his order dated 09-09-1999, a copy whereof is at Exh.G to the petition. 4. The disciplinary authority has also considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has stated that the remark “carry forward” might have been slipped through 3 oversight but there was no malafide intention. The disciplinary authority found that entries were carried forward by the petitioner and his subsequent denial was only an after-thought. The authority also found that in the departmental inquiry, hearsay evidence is not permissible and it was found that the entries were carried forward by the petitioner in view of his own admission. The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of recovery of Rs.200/- for a period of five years from his pension, as the petitioner had already retired on 31-07-1997 from the service. 5. Against the aforesaid order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 27-09-2000 on the ground that no reasons were given for seeking condonation of delay. 6. We have considered the matter on merits and have considered the order of the disciplinary authority, wherein the authority has given cogent reasons for imposing penalty upon the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has found that since the petitioner himself has admitted that he had carried forward the entry, which resulted into a monetary loss and therefore, passed an order to recover a sum of Rs.200/- per month for a period of five years, which may be equivalent to the loss suffered by the Department. Considering the reasoning given by the authority, this is not a case in which this Court would like to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by 4 interfering with the impugned order, as the matter was argued before us on merits. Therefore, while confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority, we direct that the retiral benefits which the petitioner is entitled to, if not paid, should be paid to the petitioner. The order of penalty would not come in the way of retiral benefits of the petitioner. Since it is not in dispute that the amount of penalty is already recovered from the petitioner, whatever other retiral dues which the petitioner is entitled to, shall be paid to the petitioner on regular basis. 7. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)