IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.689 of 2007 Reserved on 28.3.2008 Date of decision 25.4.2008 B.K.Sharma Petitioner Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & ors. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Hamender Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Ratish Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner’s explanation was sought by the DGM (F&A) on 4th August, 2004 for non recovery of T.A. Advances outstanding against him. He was directed to submit his explanation within a period of ten days. He submitted a detailed reply to the letter dated 4th August, 2004 on 19th August, 2004. He primarily contended in his reply that the bills were submitted by him in time and the same were forwarded by the D.D.O. by registered post. In continuation of his earlier reply dated 19th August, 2004 he submitted another representation on 2nd December, 2004. The CAO/IFA informed the General Manager (F&A) on 14th December, 2004 that no T.A. advance was pending against the petitioner. The Accounts 1 Whether reporters of local papers are allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Officer (Cash) had sent a communication dated 17.3.2005 to the Chief Accounts Officer (IA) to the effect that the explanation regarding every T.A. Advances and comments of the office had been forwarded to his office with due approval of the CAO/DGM/GMTD, Solan. He was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.15776/- on account of penal interest for delayed refund/adjustment of T.A. advances taken by him on different occasions vide communication dated 21.10.2005. The respondents had also started effecting recoveries from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to communication dated 21.10.2005. Mr. Hamender Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had strenuously argued that issuance of letter dated 21.10.2005 (Annexure P-18) was outcome of arbitrary exercise of powers. Mr.Chandel then submitted that all the T.A. advances were duly adjusted by the authorities and the same position was reflected in the audit paras. Mr.Ratish Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had supported the issuance of letter dated 21.10.2005. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. The petitioner’s explanation was called for on 4th August, 2004. He had filed a detailed reply on 19th August, 2004 and on 2nd December, 2004. The CAO/IFA had already informed the General Manager (F&A) on 14th December, 2004 that no T.A. advances were pending against the petitioner. It is also evident from the communication dated 17.3.2005 which is para-wise compliance report submitted by the Accounts Officer (Cash) to the Chief Accounts Officer (IA) that the advances were duly settled. It will be apt to reproduce the text of para 14 and para 35 which reads thus: 3 “Para -14 Explanation of Sh. B.K.Sharma, Accounts Officer, previously posted as AO Cash % TDM Kullu of this office was called vide your office letter No.IA/34-10/04-05/6 dated at Shimla the 04-8-2004 on this subject. The explanation regarding every T.A. Advances and Comments of this office have already been forwarded to your office with due approval of CAO/DGM/GMTD Solan. Duplicate T.A. bills against the pending T.A. advances shown as per revised LPC received from TDM Kullu vide No.46/TDM-Kulu/A-46/LPC/139 dated 24.6.2004 were submitted by Sh.B.K.Sharma,AO in the month of June, 2004. The bills were admitted and paid/adjusted after considering following points: a) All T.A.Advances were not transferred on the LPC issued by TDM Kulu vide letter No.46/TDM-Kulu/A-46/LPC/120 dated 12.8.2003 at the time of transfer of Sh.B.K.Sharma from Kulu to Solan SSA due to the reasons that the original bills must have been submitted by Sh.B.K.Sharma in that office. b) Revised LPC showing all TA Advances as pending was received vide TDM Kulu letter No.46/TDM-Kulu/A-46/LPC/139 dated 24.6.2004. c) It was certified by Sh.B.K.Sharma AO on the body of each duplicate TA bill that original was submitted in the office of TDM Kulu which are not traceable in that office now hence duplicate bills submitted. d) Sufficient office orders and other documentary evidence was enclosed with each TA bill by Sh.B.K.Sharma proving his entitlement to the TA/DA and genuineness of the claims. e) It was checked that these TA bills were not already paid/adjusted in the office of TDM Kulu. f) While passing the duplicate TA bills the prescribed limitation period was also considered. It was found that these bills even after submission of prescribed time limit can not be rejected on the ground of limitation only. Vide Govt. of India decision below Rule 28 FHB Vol I. g) One duplicate transfer TA bill duly passed was received from Dy. Controller of Communication Accounts (erstwhile CAO(TR)Faridabad) Assam Circle, Gouwahati vide letter No.ASM/DOT-Cell/DCCA-Misc. dt. 10.08.2004 for Rs.7169/- out of total transfer T.A. Advance of Rs.1000/- paid in 09-2000. 4 Para 35 Late adjustment of T.A. Advance Bills were submitted in time but adjustment was delayed due to shortage of staff. Hence no penal interest is due.” Once the T.A. advances were settled/adjusted there was no occasion for the respondents to call for petitioner’s explanation on 21.10.2005. The DGM (HQ) had also informed the General Manager( Admn.) on 7.7.2007 that it will be matter of concern for the institution if one IFA disallows the amount settled by his predecessor IFA. The CAO/IFA had informed the General Manager (F&A) as far back as on 14.12.2004 that no T.A. advances were pending against the petitioner. Despite this the petitioner’s explanation had been sought for on 21.10.2005. The respondents had also not taken into consideration Annexure P-35 dated 17.3.2005 while calling upon the petitioner’s explanation. The letter dated 17.3.2005 is also self explanatory the manner in which the T.A. advances of the petitioner had been processed and settled. In view of the above discussion the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-18 dated 21.10.2005 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner which has been recovered pursuant to letter dated 21.10.2005 within a period of eight weeks from today. No order as to costs. April 25, 2007 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.