Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
V Lakshminarayana vs M/O Defence on 9 April, 2019
OA/21/ 283/2017
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH: HYDERABAD
OA/21/283/2017
Reserved on: 05.04.2019
Order pronounced on: 09.04.2019
Between:
V. Lakshminarayana,
S/o. Sri V. Venkatadri,
Aged about 56 years, Occ: JTO (D),
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence (DGQA),
Controllerate of Quality Assurance,
(Infantry Combat Vehicle),
Yeddumailaram, Medak - 502 205,
R/o. Plot No.429, Gokul Plots, KPHB Kukatpally,
Hyderabad - 500 072, Telangana State.
...Applicant
And
1. The Union of India rep. by
Controller, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence (DGQA),
Controllerate of Quality of
Assurance (Infantry Combat Vehicle),
Yeddumailaram,
Medak District - 502 205, T.S.
2. The Deputy Director of Audit (OF),
HVF Admin Building, II floor, Avadi,
Chennai - 600 054, T.N.
3. The Controller of Finance and Accounts (Fys),
Ordnance Factory, Medak - 502 205, T.S.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant ... Mr. K. Ram Murthy
Counsel for the Respondents ... Mr. M. Brahma Reddy, Sr. PC to CG
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar ... Member (Admn.)
Page 1 of 5
OA/21/ 283/2017
ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Member (Admn.)}
2. The OA is filed challenging the order of recovery of LTC amount paid to the applicant.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was granted LTC for the block year 2010-2013 to visit Bagdogra to travel by air. He was paid advance and on completion of the journey, the final amount of Rs.1,26,000 along with leave encashment of Rs.86,232 was paid to the applicant. The applicant travelled by Air India but the ticket was done by a private travel agency. After four years of the said journey, respondents ordered recovery of the amount paid, claiming that the air fares were inflated, without giving an opportunity to the applicant to explain his stand. Aggrieved over the same, the O.A. has been filed.
4. The contentions of the applicant are that he never misrepresented nor did he personally get the tickets inflated. If at all the respondents on verification found that the amount claimed is excess, they should withheld the amount claimed in excess and release the balance instead of withholding the entire amount and also the leave encashment. The applicant also states that the Division Bench of this Tribunal has granted interim stay on 13.04.2017.
5. Respondents in their reply informed that the applicant has submitted fal0se and fabricated air tickets which were inflated. The tickets were originally booked by M/s. Sai Tours & Travels, Hyderabad at the cost of Rs.15,299/- per ticket per passenger totalling to Rs.61,196/- in the name of the applicant and three family members. The tickets were submitted along with the claim of Rs.45,338/- per Page 2 of 5 OA/21/ 283/2017 ticket per passenger totalling to Rs.1,81,353/- in the name of the applicant and three family members. The Regional Internal Audit has detected the inflated claim and ordered recovery of the total amount. Respondents also contend that the applicant is not entitled to get air tickets booked through private agents as per rules on the subject. The fact of inflated claim came to light only when the Regional Internal Audit verified with Air India authorities through their channels and on knowing about the same, recovery was ordered.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the documents placed and the material papers submitted.
7. As seen from the records submitted, the applicant has performed the journey. There is no dispute in regard to the same. However, the fact of inflated claim came to light only when the Internal Audit cross verified with Air India about the actual fare. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that air fares fluctuate depending upon demand. Also, when inquired, Air India informed that they do not maintain record of the air fares of the past. The other submission of the learned counsel for the applicant was that in other Wings of the organization in similar cases, the matter has been referred to DOPT for one time relaxation. His request was to direct the respondents to forward the case of the applicant also to the DOPT for one time relaxation.
8. In sharp contrast, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the claim of the applicant is a bogus claim. He submitted a letter dated 4.4.2019 addressed to him by the SAO of the respondent organization wherein they have enclosed the original air fare charged by the Air India and the inflated claim made Page 3 of 5 OA/21/ 283/2017 by the applicant. The original fare as on the date of issue of ticket in the name of the applicant was Rs.15,299/- per passenger whereas the inflated rate shown was Rs.45,338/- per passenger. Thus, it is evident that the applicant has submitted a bill which is not as per the original fare charged by Air India. Thus, the contention of the applicant that Air India could not supply information about the fares of the past is not correct. Besides, respondents have also pointed out that they have come across many false claims in regard to LTC. Therefore, the Comptroller and Auditor General has ordered the Senior Internal Officers to conduct audit of the LTC claims for the block year 2010-2013 in all the Units where such suspected inflated claims were made in the respondent organization. Due to the said check, the inflated claim of the applicant has also come to light. As provided in Rule 12 of GIDs (12-C), 12-H and 19 of CCS (LTC) Rules 1988, air tickets may be purchased directly from Air lines book counters or website of Air lines or through Authorized Travel Agents viz. M/s. Ashok Travels & Tours, M/s Ballmer Laurie & Company. Therefore, if the tickets purchased through other than the above, the entire fare paid erroneously on such claims has to be objected in audit which requires immediate recovery with penal interest from the sources of the officers concerned. The respondents acted as per the said rule.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited the observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ujjal Mukherjee & Ors vs National Informatics Centre dated 29.10.2015 and also the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in UOI & Others vs Jawahar Lal, support of his contention.
10. The judgements cited have been gone through and found that they are not relevant. The issue in Ujjal Mukherjee's case supra was about whether the Page 4 of 5 OA/21/ 283/2017 journey was performed and in the case before the Rajasthan High Court, it was about travel by private Air lines. In the instant case, the journey is not in doubt. However, the fares claimed have been found to be fraudulent. The respondents submitted the evidence to prove that the fares were inflated.
11. In view of the above, there are no grounds for the Tribunal to intervene in the matter. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. Interim Order granted on 13.04.2017 stands vacated. No order as to costs.
(B.V. SUDHAKAR) MEMBER (ADMN.) pv Page 5 of 5