JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of Indian is directed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’) in Original Application No.203/01141/2018, whereby the original application filed 2 by the sole respondent therein has been allowed and the petitioners / Union of India have directed to refund of an amount of Rs.17,40,000/- deposited by the respondent herein within a period of 90 days, failing which, the petitioners would be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8% thereafter.

2. The respondent herein was working as Branch Post Mastar, Siltara, Takhatpur and it was the case of the respondent herein that he was issued a letter by the competent authority on 05.02.2015 alleging excess payment of Rs.17,00,000/- to the beneficiaries of various Government Schemes and to deposit the same in the office, otherwise criminal proceedings would be initiated against him. He, thereafter, under the threat and coercion, deposited a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- on 10.02.2015 and also deposited an amount of Rs.40,000/- on some other date. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued on 15.06.2018 for excess payment of Rs.4,860/- and ultimately, after departmental enquiry, he was removed from service on 31.03.2021, against which the departmental appeal has been preferred by him, which is still pending. Meanwhile, the respondent herein had filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1985’) claiming refund of Rs.17,40,000/- along with 18% interest, which has been allowed and against which, instant writ petition has been preferred.

3. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India / petitioners submits that application for refund of an amount of Rs.17,40,000/- before the Tribunal in terms of Section 3(q) 3 read with Sections 14(1) and 19 of the Act of 1985 was not maintainable. Even otherwise, the respondent herein had paid an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- on 10.02.2015 as well as Rs.40,000/- on some other date and an application was filed on 19.09.2018, which has become barred by limitation, therefore, the original application was not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, Mr. A.V. Shridhar, learned counsel, appearing for the sole respondent supported the impugned order passed by the learned CAT and submits that the aforesaid amount was deposited in the year 2015 consequent upon the department pressurising the respondent herein to deposit the said amount on the ground that there was embezzlement by the respondent. It has been submitted by him that subsequently, a charge-sheet was issued on 15.06.2018 for alleged embezzlement only for an amount of Rs.4,860/- and after completion of the enquiry, the respondent was removed from service, as against which, an appeal is pending consideration, and the chargesheet was issued only in respect of Rs.4,860/-, the petitioners cannot claim that respondent had allegedly embezzled a sum of Rs.17,40,000/- and therefore, the writ petitioners have got no right to retain the money, as the same has resulted in unjust enrichment to the Union of India. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, their rival submissions and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

6. It is apparent on record that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- on 10.02.2015 and an amount of Rs.40,000/- on some other date and the charge-sheet was issued to him and he was terminated from services on 31.03.2021, against which, departmental appeal is pending consideration. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs.17,40,000/- was not the subject matter of chargesheet issued to him.

7. The question for consideration would be whether the jurisdiction of th