K.Sreenivasa v. The Airports Authority of India

The Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma Writ Petition No.23180 of 1996 Oral Order: (“On being mentioned”):- On 5th July, 2006, this Court passed Order in Writ Petition No.23180 of 1996 allowing the same. Soon after dictating the order in open court and before it is signed, Mr. E.Madanmohan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Air Ports Authority of India, appeared and brought to the notice of this Court that his name was not printed in the cause-list, dated 5th July 2006, and so he could not make his submissions. Hence, this Court directed the Registry to post this writ petition under the caption ‘for being mentioned’ duly printing the name of Mr. E.Madanmohan Rao. Accordingly, the writ petition is listed today before this Court under the caption ‘for being mentioned’. That is how the writ petition is listed again before this Court today. Having regard to the above circumstances, in the interests of justice, the order passed by this Court on 05th July, 2006 in this Writ Petition No.23180 of 1996 is hereby recalled and the writ petition is taken up for hearing afresh today.

Heard both sides. Petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings No. AAI/BER/RAU/SAO/1641 dated 30.8.1996/4-9-1996 of the 4th respondent and the consequential Office Note No.NAD/AAI/Foreign Tour/96 dated 18.10.1996 of the 3rd respondent by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Petitioner is working as Electronic Officer, Airports Authority of India, N.A. Division, Hyderabad. Twelve officials, including the petitioner, were sent by the respondents to Baltimore, United States of America, on 30.8.1993 for undergoing training upto 3.12.1993, i.e., for 97 days. The Airports Authority of India addressed the Reserve Bank of India to issue permit for drawal of certain foreign exchange and it appears that the Reserve Bank of India allowed drawal of US $ 17,550 for each trainee towards ‘living expenses’ and the petitioner appears to have drawn the same from the Vijaya Bank, New Delhi, undertook journey to Baltimore, U.S.A, and returned to India on 5.12.1993 on completion of training.

The petitioner submitted his T.A. Settlement Bill by showing the entire amount received in foreign exchange as ‘living expenses’. Thereupon, by the impugned orders, the petitioner was directed by the respondents to refund foreign exchange to the tune of $1897 on the ground that the said foreign exchange was “overdrawn” by him. Hence, the writ petition. While admitting the writ petition, on 1.11.1996, this Court granted interim stay of recovery of the excess foreign exchange from the petitioner until further orders. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, controverting the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders are opposed to the principles of natural justice, as no notice was issued to the petitioner in order to enable him to submit his explanation.

Sri E.Madanmohan Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that as per the policy, which was in vogue at the relevant point of time, the trainees were sent abroad by providing them specific sum in the shape foreign exchange in order to meet their expenses’ abroad and the trainees are expected to account for the foreign exchange provided to them on their return from abroad. He contended that the amount of foreign exchange provided to the petitioner and other trainees is ‘public money’ and as the petitioner has not produced the requisite bills showing the expenditure incurred by him abroad the respondents directed him to return $ 1897. The respondent-Airports Authority had issued Office Memorandum No. D.21015/12/90- Bud/NAA, dated 10.10.1991, for providing foreign exchange for meeting the ‘living expenses’ and ‘boarding expenses’ to the trainees. As per the said memorandum, the Reserve Bank of India has released a sum of $ 1750 for each of the trainees for their stay abroad for about three months.

The memorandum further states that the trainees may overstay and visit other places also, but no additional foreign exchange will be released for such overstayed period. However, it is admitted in the counter-affidavit that the Reserve Bank of India issued permit to the petitioner to utilize $ 1750 towards ‘living expenses’ abroad and the petitioner received the same. It appears from the counter-affidavit that Dearness Allowance etc., has to be split into two parts, i.e., 55% in U.S. Dollars as ‘living allowance’ and 45% thereof as ‘lodging allowance’, on production of hotel bills. It appears that the petitioner had produced hotel bills for as against the admissible receipts for $ 7897. The shortfall of $ 1897 was requested to be refunded, as the same was not covered by hotel receipts. In this regard, it is to be noted that it may not, at all times, be possible to explain as to how the permissible amount was spent by the petitioner, by producing the bills for each and every small item of expenditure.

No doubt, a procedure appears to have been carved out for processing the claims of the petitioner and other trainees as regards the expenditure incurred by them abroad. Further, it is on record that since the petitioner had produced bills only to an extent of $ 6000 and as he did not produce the bills for the rest of the expenditure, the shortfall was deemed by the respondents as the expenditure not properly explained by the petitioner, and $ 1897 (equivalent to Rs.60,135/-) was sought to be recovered from him. In my considered view, the respondents, despite the aforesaid Office Memorandum, ought not to have been so rigid in asking the petitioner to produce the bills for each and sundry item of living expenditure incurred by him abroad during the period of his stay for the purpose of undergoing training. It cannot be forgotten that the petitioner was sent abroad as a trainee and his mind should be on receiving the training and enriching his knowledge, but not on the small things like keeping bills for each and every item of expenditure with him for the purpose of producing and explaining the same before the respondents on return from abroad.

Furthermore, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had misappropriated any foreign exchange granted to him and caused loss to the Government of India. The case of the respondents, if put in nutshell, appears to be that the amount sanctioned, though spent by the petitioner, was not properly explained by him by producing the bills. The approach of the respondents in this type of matters should be pragmatic rather than pedantic. That apart, no notice calling for explanation from the petitioner for not producing the bills for some expenditure incurred by him abroad appears to have been issued which, in my considered view, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Yet another contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents is that recovery was effected from similarly placed persons as that of the petitioner and similar recovery is sought to be effected from the petitioner also in the interest of public exchequer and, hence, the impugned orders are justified.

Maybe, recovery might have been effected from other persons similarly placed as that of the petitioners. But, what had happened and what was the procedure that was followed in cases relating to others is not forthcoming. Even otherwise, it is not fair for the respondents to effect recovery at this stage since, apparently, it is not the case of the respondents that there was any misappropriation committed by the petitioner causing loss to the exchequer. Rather, it is only a technical violation, if any, committed by the petitioner in not producing the bills, which ought not to have been viewed so seriously. However, mainly on the ground that there is infraction of principles of natural justice and on the other ground that resorting to recovery of $ 1897, or the equivalent sum in Indian currency from the petitioner, after a lapse of three years from the date of his return to India on completion of training, is something strange and not rational, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.