Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22.1. PW6, in her cross-examination, admitted that Exhibit PW2/DA notice had been issued by the appellant to PW2, requiring the latter to submit a reply within a fortnight. However, PW2 never replied to the said notice. She admitted that in the absence of such reply, the pension papers of PW2 could not be signed by the appellant/accused. She further admitted that PW2 was an ex-serviceman and that an employee cannot draw dearness allowance from two departments at the same time. She deposed PW2 had been asked to submit his pension book, but he never complied with the same. PW6 further deposed that during her tenure she had dealt with PW2's case relating to leave encashment and that upon scrutiny by the Accounts Branch, discrepancies were noticed in the leave records, including incorrect absentee statements and excess claims. She stated that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Health) had called for her comments on the pension papers of PW2 and that she had submitted the same. PW6 further deposed that after the initiation of the case on hand, PW2 had visited the office and threatened her and the other officials by claiming that one Chauhan, ACP of the Anti- Corruption Branch was his close friend and that he could put all of them in trouble with the help of his friend. Pursuant to the same, a written complaint was given to the Anti-Corruption Branch, a copy of which has been marked as Exhibit PW6/DB.

36. Further, it has also come on record that PW2 was drawing dearness allowance from the Army, where he was initially employed, and after his retirement and joining the MCD, he was also drawing dearness allowance from the MCD. Proceedings were initiated against him in that regard by the Army and the excess amount was recovered from him. If PW6 is to be believed, there were several discrepancies noted in the leave records of PW2 including absentee statements and excess claims.