IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1176 of 2001 Decided on : November 10, 2008 Harminder Singh …Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Central Government Counsel. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Petitioner is dissatisfied with the order, dated 9th May, 2001, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, on his Original Application No.1025/HP/1999, whereby his prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pass his TA claim for a sum of Rs.24,504/-, has been dismissed. So, he has approached this Court for judicial review of the said order of the learned Tribunal and issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay him a sum of Rs.11,860.00, less the amount of money already paid to him on account of bus fare, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Also, he has challenged the order dated 3rd July, 2001 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby his petition for review of the aforesaid order has been dismissed. 2. Relevant facts may be noticed. Petitioner was employed as Senior Auditor in the Office of Accountant Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… General (Audit), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, during the year 1998-99. It was his duty to perform journey to various places, in connection with audit of accounts of different government offices. He submitted six TA bills, bearing numbers 1471 to 1476, for the journeys performed by him from 1st September, 1998 to 31st March, 1999, claiming therein mileage allowance for performance of 2965 kms of journey by his own scooter, at the rate of Rs.4.00 per kilometer. Respondent No.3, Deputy Accountant General (Administration), to whom the bills were submitted for counter signatures by Senior Deputy Accountant General, the Controlling Officer of the petitioner, noticed that only two petrol receipts, showing consumption of total quantity of 20 litres of petrol, had been attached, in respect of 2965 kms of journey. He also noticed that in one of the bills, though the journey was shown to have been performed by scooter from Shimla to Amb, yet the journey from Amb to Gagret, which was only 10 kms, was shown to have been performed by bus. He suspected that because there was a toll-tax barrier between Amb and Gagret and the petitioner was supposed to have obtained a receipt in respect of that toll-tax barrier and submitted the same with the bill, he showed that part of the journey having been performed by bus. He suspected that in fact the entire journey, right from Shimla to Gagret, had been performed by bus and since there was no barrier between Shimla and Amb, the journey was shown to have been performed by scooter, while the journey over a stretch of only …3… 10 kms, from Amb to Gagret, was shown to have been performed by bus, as he had no toll-tax receipt. He also noticed that another journey from Shimla to Pathankot was shown to have been performed by scooter and from Pathankot to Jammu by bus, but there was no document, indicating that journey was performed upto Pathankot by scooter. Therefore, respondent No.3 rejected the claim for payment of mileage allowance, at the rate of Rs.4.00 per kilometer, made by the petitioner on the plea that he had performed the journey by his own scooter. Before rejecting the claim, respondent No.3 issued letters to the petitioner, asking him to submit documentary proof, in respect of his claim that the journey had been performed by scooter. Petitioner did not submit any document, except one more receipt, in respect of 10 litres of petrol. 3. Petitioner challenged the order of rejection of his claim for mileage allowance before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application. In the Original Application, he alleged that under SR 195, respondent No.3 did not have any authority to ask for petrol receipts and that the instructions, relied upon by respondent No.3, regarding submission of petrol receipts, had no legal force, as the same had been issued by respondent No.3 himself and he did not have any authority to issue such instructions. Also, he claimed that he was unaware of those instructions. It was also alleged by him that there were no instructions that …4… journey performed by scooter was to be measured, in terms of the quantity of fuel consumed. 4. Respondents filed reply, in which they alleged that instructions, Annexure R-1, asking for submission of petrol receipts, had been issued in the year 1993, not by respondent No.3 but by the Accountant General (Audit), who was competent to issue such instructions. Petitioner’s assertion that he was unaware of those instructions was also controverted. Learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, vide impugned order. 5. Petitioner has alleged that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration various legal issues raised by him, while deciding the Original Application, and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside, by exercise of power of judicial review, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 7. Petitioner claimed mileage allowance at the rate of Rs.4.00 per kilometer, for performing 2965 kms of journey, alleging that the journey had been performed by him by scooter. Respondent No.3, after rejecting his claim, paid him money equivalent to the bus fare, for the performance of the aforesaid journey of 2965 kms. Petitioner’s submission is that Annexure R-1, letter containing instructions regarding submission of petrol receipts, has been issued by respondent No.3, who has no authority to issue such instructions. The …5… plea is not correct, because the instructions have been issued in the name of the Accountant General, though the same are signed by Deputy Accountant General (Establishment). Deputy Accountant General (Establishment) has signed the said instructions for and on behalf of the Accountant General. 8. Another plea raised by the petitioner is that he was unaware of the aforesaid instructions, at the time when he submitted the TA bills. This plea is belied by one of his own letters, which he wrote to respondent No.3 when the latter directed him to submit petrol receipts. This letter is dated 15th March, 1999, Annexure P-5. He stated in the said letter that in the past some orders had been issued by the office that the petrol receipts should be produced as proof of journey undertaken by own vehicle and that he had attached a few petrol receipts as proof of journey undertaken by him. Now, when in the said letter he himself had made reference to the instructions, issued in the past, for submission of petrol receipts and also stated that in accordance with those instructions, he had submitted a few receipts, he cannot be heard to say that he was unaware of the instructions, issued vide Annexure R-1. 9. As already noticed, petitioner submitted petrol receipts, indicating consumption of only 20 litres of petrol, whereas the journey performed by him, as per bills with which those two receipts were submitted, was 1932 kms. Just with 20 litres of petrol such a large mileage could not have been logged and, therefore, respondent No.3 was fully justified in …6… suspecting the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner and rejecting the same. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we see no ground, muchless a justifiable ground, for interfering with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition stands disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. November 10, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.