Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are wrong in simply citing the Department of Public Enterprises (for brevity DPE) guidelines in O.M.F.No.2(23)/11-DPE (WC)-GL-XXVI/13 dated 04.11.2013, when such guidelines are implemented in MFL, only when the Board of MFL decides to implement the same by passing resolution. Further, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis it is only after the DPE guidelines dated 04.11.2013, the Board of MFL in their 287th Board Meeting dated 15.12.2016 decided to recover only 5% of Basic Pay from all employees for transport facility provided to them. Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the respondents to make recovery of amounts in respect of guidelines not implemented by the Board.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed a re-joinder for the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, wherein, it is stated that the Official Memorandum issued by DPE dated 04.11.2013 has not been brought https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to the notice for implementation by the General Manager (P&A) department till the date of petitioner’s retirement. Further, the guidelines issued by DPE are not automatically implemented in MFL, unless the board of MFL approves to implement it. It is to be noted that only after the receipt of DPE guidelines dated 21.01.2013 and 04.11.2013, the Board of MFL in its 287 th Board Meeting held on 15.12.2016 decides to recover 5% of Basic Pay for all employees (which obviously includes General Manager) for using company transport facility.

10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner was kept pending, due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner with regard to procurement of reformer tubes, screw compressor, phosphoric Acid, HDPE bags and road transport contract. I n respect of the same, he was awarded major penalty for all the above five tender and contracts. Earlier, he has been awarded with minor penalty in the case of (i) Recruitment of Liaison representative (Gr-IV) and (ii) Recruitment of Liaison Officer on contract and also received recordable warning in the case of (i) Recruitment of Liaison Officer (E-1 scale – failed attempt) and (ii) Recruitment of Plant Attendant Trainees. The entire disciplinary proceeding was completed during February 2021. Subsequently, on completion of the disciplinary cases, while processing the final settlement, vigilance clearance was sought, which is the procedure for obtaining employee clearance for final settlement. The Vigilance Department while referring to complaints relating to ineligible use of official vehicles, advised the respondents to ensure compliance to guidelines of DPE dated 04.11.2013. A similar direction has been received by the company from the CVC and its administrative Department of Fertilizers, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis of India to comply with DPE guidelines on ineligible use of office car.

22. No doubt, the recovery order issued by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary has contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If, according to the second respondent, the MFL vigilance section had advised to ensure the DPE guidelines in regard to the usage of company car then why, the MFL has not complied the DPE guidelines for which, the action should be initiated/taken against the erring officers for not complying the same, instead of issuing the recovery communication to the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention that it is an admitted fact that a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis sum of Rs.1,21,384/- has already been recovered from the petitioner towards the car usage on monthly basis from the date of his appointment to his date of superannuation on 31.07.2020. This itself shows that the respondents themselves have extended the facility of usage of company car by the petitioner.