ORDER
Srinivasan, J.
1. The petitioner was the Principal Subordinate. Judge, Vellore. He applied to the Government by a communication dated September 5, 1985 for meeting the expenses to be incurred by him in connection with a coronary bypass surgery in the United States of America. In that letter he has stated that the said operation could not be performed in India, as the facilities are not available and he has been advised that he could have the operation only in Houston, U.S.A. He has also stated that the expenditure would come to about Rs. 4-1/2 lacs. The Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 686 dated March 17, 1986 sanctioning payment of an interest free loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- as a special case to meet the expenses of the petitioner’s bypass surgery. Paragraph 4 of the said G.O. is in the following terms :
“4. Thiru N. Ganapathy, Principal Sub-Judge, Vellore is authorised to draw the amount sanctioned in paragraph 2 above. He is requested to adjust the amount on return after treatment from abroad by presenting a bill at the Treasury and Accounts Officer, Vellore with vouchers duly certified”.
2. Finding that he was not in a position to raise the remaining amount required for surgery, which according to him, was at that time Rs. 1,69,000/- he cancelled the leave applied for by him and joined duty. Actually, he joined duty on 30 March 31, 1986, cancelling the unavailed portion of leave from March 31, 1986 to April 18, 1986. But, before that, he had drawn the amount sanctioned by the Government, Viz Rs. 2,00,000/- on March 19, 1986 and deposited the same in the account with Bank of Baroda. The High Court issued a communication to him under R.O.C. No. 103/85-Con. B2 dated May 16, 1986 directing him to state whether he had already drawn the amount sanctioned in G.O.Ms. No. 686 for meeting the medical expenses at U.S.A. and if so, he should refund the money and could draw the same only after he had made arrangements for his by-pass surgery and if he was keeping the money it was irregular. On May 29, 1986, the petitioner submitted an application to the Government again for sanction of the balance of Rs. 1,69,000/- required for meeting the expenses for the operation. On September 5, 1986 the High Court sent a further direction to the petitioner by an Official Memorandum that he should remit the amount into the Treasury immediately. On the directions of the High Court, the Principal District Judge, Vellore, reminded the petitioner to remit the amount by his letters dated August 11, 1986 and September 25, 1986. In spite of those communications, the petitioner did not remit the amount into the treasury.
3. By Roc. No. 103/85-Con B2 dated August 5, 1986, the Principal District Judge was directed by the High Court to hold an enquiry against the petitioner for his misconduct. Charges were framed and approved by the High Court. The Principal District Judge, after holding the enquiry submitted his report on September 13, 1989 giving the following findings against the petitioner :- (1) the petitioner had failed to refund the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in spite of the repeated directions issued by the High Court : (2) The petitioner had given his native address at Cuddalore as leave address though the purpose of applying for leave was to proceed to U.S.A. for treatment and thus he had knowingly given false and misleading leave address to the High Court; and (3) The petitioner had violated Rule 20 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules and had done acts unbecoming of a member of the service by being disobedient in not following the directions to refund the money. The findings of the District Judge were accepted in November 16, 1990 and the petitioner was censured.
4. In the meanwhile, the Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 3608, dated December 29, 1986, by which it sanctioned the payment of Rs. 1,69,000/- as a special case as an interest free loan to the petitioner in addition to the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- already sanctioned. In paragraph 94 of the said G.O., the Registrar of the High Court was requested to ensure that the loan amount was disbursed to him only after getting an indemnity bond setting out the amount drawn as loan, duly executed by him with sureties from his wife and other adult members of his family for repayment of the said loan in case of any default on his part. He was requested to repay the interest free loan after return from treatment abroad by presenting an adjustment bill at the Treasury and Accounts Officer, Vellore with vouchers duly certified as per the rules in force.
5. After he had the surgery on July 15, 1987 the petitioner returned to India on August 6, 1987. After the expiry of leave, he returned to duty on August 31, 1987. He did not present any bill for adjustment. The Pay and Accounts Officer informed the High Court by communication dated July 20, 1988 that no adjustment bill was presented. When he was directed by the High Court to present such a bill by Official Memorandum dated January 4, 1989, the petitioner wrote a letter dated January 6, 1989 requesting for two months’ time to submit a bill for adjustment. He was granted time till March 5, 1989. The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, was instructed by the High Court by letter dated February 28, 1989 to enforce recovery of the amount due to Government in installments commencing from the month of March 1989 from the pay and allowances of the petitioner in consultation with the Pay and Accounts Officer (North) Madras, if the petitioner did not present the bill for adjustment on or before March 5, 1989. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the bill for adjustment on March 10, 1989 to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, who presented it to the Pay and Accounts Officer (North), Madras on March 13, 1989.
6. The Pay and Accounts Officer requested the Government to clarify the position regarding the mode of recovery of the loan. The Government passed G.O.Ms. No. 32, dated January 7, 1993, which reads as follows :
“In G.O.Ms. No. 686, Home, dated March 17, 1986 and G.O.Ms. No. 3608, Home, dated December 29, 1986, the Government sanctioned an interest free loan of Rs. 3,69,000/- to Thiru N. Gajapathy, formerly Principal Sub Judge, Vellore to meet the expenditure in connection with his medical treatment in United States of America. The Registrar, High Court, Madras has also been requested to ensure that the loan amount of Rs. 3,69,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Only) sanctioned to Thiru N. Gajapathy is disbursed only after getting an indemnity bond setting out amount drawn as interest free loan and the mode of repayment of the said loan duly executed by him with sureties from his wife and other adult members of his family for repayment of the said loan in case there is any default on the part of the executor. The amount of interest free loan sanctioned to Thiru N. Gajapathy was drawn by the Officer as follows :-
Rs. 2,00,000/- drawn on March 19, 1986 at District Treasury, Vellore. Rs. 1,69,000/- drawn on May 13, 1987 at District Treasury, Vellore.
An interest amount of Rs. 13,549.50 has accrued to the loan amount deposited in the Bank of Baroda at Vellore by Thiru N. Gajapathy before his departure to United States of America for treatment.
2. On return from abroad in 1987, Thiru N. Gajapathy, Sub Judge represented to Government for adjustment of the sum of Rs. 3,82,549.50 and for reimbursement of additional expenditure of a sum of Rs. 1,05,082.35 incurred over and above the amount of sanctioned loan, treating the amount of interest free loan sanctioned by the Government as advance payment for his medical treatment abroad. The Pay and Accounts Officer (North), Madras has also requested the Government to clarify the position regarding the mode of recovery of the loan.
3. In as much as the Government have sanctioned only an interest free loan to Thiru N. Gajapathy, the entire loan amount should have been repaid by the individual along with the interest amount of Rs. 13,549.50 referred to in para one above after his return to India in 1987. The failure on his part to do so requires penal action. However taking a lenient view, the Government now direct that the amount of Rs. 3,82,549/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand and Five Hundred and Forty Nine only) sanctioned to Thiru N. Gajapathy as interest free loan be recovered in full immediately.
4. The Registrar, High Court is therefore requested to take immediate action to recover the entire amount due from Thiru N. Gajapathy. The action taken in the matter may be reported to Government at an early date.
5. The Registrar, High Court is requested to acknowledge the receipt of this Government Order.
6. The amount ordered to be recovered should be debited to “2014 – Administration of Justice – 105 Civil and Sessions Courts – I. Non-Plan – AB. Mofussil Civil and Sessions Courts – 77 Deduct Recoveries – 1. Repayment of “Loan advanced for meeting medical expenses in United States of America”. (D.P. Code No. 2014 pp 105 AB-7705)”.
7. It is this G.O. which is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that having specified the mode of repayment as presentation of bills and vouchers at the Treasury for adjustment, in G.O.Ms. No. 686 dated March 17, 1986 and in G.O.Ms. No. 3608 dated December 19, 1986, it is not open to the Government to insist upon repayment of the amount by the petitioner. It is argued that repayment by presentation of bills and vouchers for adjustment would only mean that the petitioner was bound to present the bills and vouchers for adjustment after returning from U.S.A. in order to prove that he had incurred the expenditure and nothing more than that. In other words, learned counsel wants this Court to hold that the amount was only a gift though it was described as an interest free loan. We are unable to accept this contention. The Government has taken care to mention in both the G.O.s. dated March 17, 1986 and December 29, 1986 that the amount is only given as an interest free loan. Once the expression ‘loan’ is used in the G.O.s., it goes without saying that the person to whom the amount is paid is bound to return the same. Further, the Government had made the position clearer by G.O.Ms. No. 3608 dated December 29, 1986 when it insisted upon the petitioner executing an indemnity bond with sureties from his wife and other adult members of his family for repayment of the said loan in case of any default on his part. There cannot be any doubt whatever after the passing of the second G.O. dated December 29, 1986 in which the indemnity bond was insisted for the entire amount of Rs. 3,69,000/-. Hence, the clarification given by the impugned G.O. viz., G.O.Ms. No. 32 dated January 7, 1993 is perfectly in order and in accordance with law.
8. The petitioner cannot make any grievance whatever of the impugned G.O. passed by the Government and the said G.O. does not suffer from any infirmity whatever.
9. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed. No costs.