IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 6 of 2007 Between: K. Mohana Rao, S/o. K. Venkata Ratnam, Electrical General, North, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Electrical General, Souther Eastern Railway, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Divisional Railway Manager (P), South Eastern Railway, Visakhapatnam. 3 G. Rajasekhar, Nourth , South Eastern Railway, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to the impugned orders dt.16.9.2005 in R.A. 37/05 in O.A. 890/2004 and 20.07.2005 in OA.890/04 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same by declaring them as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently directing the respondents to produce the alleged shortage of items from which the estimated value has been arrived at as Rs.24,150/- which is done without proper assessment in the joint letter No.WAT/ELG/S/9, Dt. 23.02.2004 of the DPO and DEE Waltair and quash the same by declaring it as illegal and arbitrary violative of Articles 311(2), 14 and 16 of the constitution and consequently direct the respondents to pay interest at 18% on the amount of Rs.2,36,140/- till the date of payment of 1,77367/- and at the same rate for the balance amount that was withheld subsequently at the time of arranging part payment and interest thereon till the date of partial refund and also after quashing the recovery at the same rate for the amount due to the applicant till the date of payment of the residual amount and may pass any other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.V.SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.R.S.MURTHY (ADD.CGSC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 6 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 15.09.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in RA No.37 of 2005 in O.A.No.890 of 2004. The petitioner herein is the applicant before the tribunal. He filed the above O.A. seeking to quash the letter dated 23.2.2004 of the DPO and DEE Waltair and consequently, to direct the respondents to pay interest at 18% on the amount of Rs.2,36,140/- till the date of payment of Rs.1,77,367/- and at the same rate for the balance amount that was withheld subsequently at the time of arranging part payment and interest thereon till the date of partial refund and also after quashing the recovery at the same rate for the amount due to the applicant till the date of payment of the residual amount in the interest of justice on the ground that his gratuity amount was withheld by the department though no charge sheet or disciplinary proceedings are pending against the applicant. The Tribunal having observed that the charge report produced by the respondents, shows that in respect of M & P items, two items were not handed over by the applicant and in this regard, the applicant had given an undertaking on 26.2.2002 requesting the authorities to debit the amount of the said shortage from his gratuity and release the balance amount and that no clearance certificate was placed by the applicant and that the plea of the applicant before the tribunal in this regard that the said undertaking was obtained by force cannot be accepted, rejected the O.A. On rejection of the O.A., the applicant has filed the review petition and the same was dismissed. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the applicant. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, it is to be noted that in view of the undertaking furnished by the applicant in his own handwriting, the tribunal by taking into consideration of the same, rejected the claim of the applicant. Subsequently, the applicant has come up with the present review application solely basing on rule 15 of the Railway Service Pension Rules. As a matter of fact, Rule 15 itself has adopted certain procedure as to the recovery of dues, if any from any of the employees of the Railways either before the retirement or after the retirement. But, in view of the undertaking given in the own handwriting of the applicant, which has been accepted by the tribunal, the question of following the procedure as adopted under rule 15 of the Rules, does not arise. Except this, there are no other grounds to entertain the writ petition. In these circumstances, the tribunal is justified in rejecting the review application. Hence, We see no merits in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date: 13th March, 2008 Nn/Gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 6 of 2007 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 13/03/2008