HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. -
(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on this appeal, which is filed challenging the legality of the order dated 14th May, 2007 and the order dated 29th May, 2007. By the order dated 14th May, 2007, the writ petition filed by the appellant was disposed of with a direction that departmental proceeding pending against the appellant be completed within a period of six months. The other direction issued is in respect of recovery of Rs.73,037/-, which was directed to be recovered from his salary in easy instalments.
(2.) It is contended by the counsel appearing for the appellant before us that the aforesaid amount of Rs.73,037/- cannot be recovered by the respondents as the penalty stopping next two increments with cumulative effect imposed in the year 1990 and is barred by limitation.
(3.) We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention because of the fact that the aforesaid penalty was challenged by the appellant in a civil suit but was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The penalty order was thereafter not challenged and has become final and binding. Therefore, recovery of the amount of Rs.73,037/- in terms of the penalty order has to be made from the appellant. The said liability cannot be avoided by the appellant as the same has not been set aside. Payments have been wrongly made to the appellant, over a period of time, therefore, recovery is not barred. The learned Single Judge has passed an order that the said amount shall be recovered from the salary of the appellant in easy instalments. The said order cannot be said to be in any manner suffering from any infirmity.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.