Competent authority must decide disputed salary deductions and TA claims through a reasoned order.

The petitioner, an Assistant Project Engineer in the Public Works Department, alleged that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had pressured him to prepare false bills and make irregular payments to a contractor.

He claimed that, after making complaints against them, he was harassed and subjected to adverse departmental action.

The petitioner further alleged that his one-day casual leave on 10 July 2018 was wrongly treated as unauthorised absence, resulting in deduction of one day’s salary, and that his travelling allowance bills from 1 January 2016 remained unpaid.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had failed to obtain prior permission for leave and that Rs.12,000 had already been paid towards his TA bills.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of one day’s salary on the ground that his absence on 10 July 2018 was duly intimated or sanctioned and could not validly be treated as unauthorised absence.

Whether the petitioner’s outstanding travelling allowance claims remained unpaid despite the respondents’ assertion that Rs.12,000 had already been disbursed.

Whether the Court should grant the petitioner’s other reliefs, including suspension, departmental proceedings and criminal contempt proceedings against the concerned respondents.

The petition was considered under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court to issue appropriate directions and writs for enforcement of legal rights and for judicial review of administrative action.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a competent administrative authority must consider a properly supported representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

Although the petitioner invoked natural justice in challenging the salary deduction, the Court did not finally adjudicate whether the deduction violated that principle; instead, it directed an administrative reconsideration on the basis of supporting documents.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not produced documentary proof of the alleged salary deduction and had relied principally on his complaint to the Principal Secretary.

The telephone screenshot and assertion of prior intimation were insufficient for the Court to conclusively determine whether the leave had been sanctioned.

Similarly, although the respondents relied on documents showing payment of Rs.12,000 towards TA bills, the petitioner disputed that the entire amount due had been paid.

Since the material facts concerning leave sanction, salary deduction and the precise balance payable under the TA claims required factual verification by the competent authority, the Court declined to decide the merits directly.

It instead required the petitioner to submit a detailed, document-supported representation and directed the authority to decide it through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court did not grant the additional reliefs seeking suspension, departmental action or criminal contempt proceedings.

The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation, with relevant documents, concerning the alleged wrongful deduction of one day’s salary and the outstanding TA bills.

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

No direct order for payment, suspension, initiation of departmental proceedings or criminal contempt was granted.