JUDGMENT

JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interalia, seeking the following reliefs:-

“A. Issue a writ of Certiorari to or any other writ/order/direction in the nature of a Certiorari to quash the Impugned Notices dated 14.02.2019 and 15.05.2019 of Respondent no. 1 seeking recovery of Rs. 7,62,750 and directing the Respondents to cease and desist from seeking any refunds from the Petitioner for emoluments which were received from the period of 10.08.2009 to 09.08.2012;

B. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ/order/direction in the nature of a Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to return the amount of Rs.30,000 which was wrongfully acquired by the Respondent No. 1 in pursuance of their order of recovery to the Petitioner.

C. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to take no further steps towards recovery of the alleged sums and to take no coercive or disciplinary measures against the Petitioner in respect of the said Impugned Notices and/or alleged recoveries.”

2. In the year 1984, the petitioner had joined the English Department of Hansraj College-respondent no.1 as a Lecturer and has been serving for the last 35 years. At the moment, it is submitted that the petitioner continues to serve as an Associate Professor in the English Department of respondent no.1-Hansraj College.

3. The petitioner had taken a study leave from 10.08.2009 through till 09.08.2012 which was sanctioned by the respondent no.1. Petitioner asserts, since the period of study was sanctioned by the petitioner and he continued to be under the full employment of the respondent no.1, he was as such entitled to all pay and emoluments.

4. It is stated that on 18.06.2013, the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) published the Audit Report/Letter wherein assessment was made in respect of the excess emoluments paid to employees of respondent no.1. It is stated that copy of the said report was not available in the public domain and neither the petitioner nor any employee of the respondent no.1 was aware of any such report. While the things stood thus, on 02.03.2016, the DoPT had issued an OM in respect of recovery of excess emoluments transferred to employees which was notified in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 28.02.2017 and 07.03.2017, the Executive Council of Delhi University had recorded in the Minutes of Meeting that the DoPT’s aforesaid OM is to be made applicable to the employees of respondent university and its colleges.

6. It is asserted that even thereafter, the petitioner was never communicated of any lapses in payments made to him or any demand for recovery thereof.

7. After about passage of 7 years from the said report of the CAG, by the letter dated 14.02.2019, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.1,66,528/- which is alleged to be excess payment made to the petitioner towards the Travel Allowance between 10.08.2009 to 09.08.2012. Subsequently, by the email dated 15.05.2019, the Accounts Department of respondent no.1 sought to recover a sum of Rs.4,69,734/- which were claimed to be excess payments made towards House Rent Allowance during the period August, 2009 to August, 2012. The said demand letter was based on the CAG’s Report dated 18.06.2013.

8. Despite the representation made by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 did not waive or withdraw the said demand notices.

Finally by letter dated 29.05.2019, the respondent reiterated their demand of Rs.7,62,750/- towards excess payments made to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition.

9. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the petitioner that there is neither misrepresentation nor any fraud that was played by the petition