(Reserved on 28.01.2026)

ORDER

MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice of recovery/letter/order dated 28.03.2012 issued by respondent No. 2 (Annexure A-1).

(ii) To issue a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount which has been recovered in pursuance of the notice of recovery/letter/order dated 28.03.2012.

(iii) To issue other and further order or direction in suitable nature which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the petition to this petitioner”.

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a Commercial Clerk on 04.10.1985 under Central Railway, Bhusawal. In the year 1988, he was transferred to North Eastern Railway, Chhapra on his own request. He has served the Railways for a long period without any dispute. A notice dated 28.03.2012 was issued to the applicant by the respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,09,288/-, which was served upon the applicant on 05.04.2012, directing him to deposit the said amount within 15 days. Immediately after receiving the recovery notice, the applicant submitted a representation dated 05.04.2012 before Respondent No. 2, requesting supply of relevant documents so that he could submit an effective reply and properly defend himself. Since no response was received from the respondents, the applicant submitted reminder dated 17.09.2012, requesting that the proposed recovery be stayed and that the matter be examined in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The applicant also specifically requested that if any enquiry was to be conducted the same should be held by an independent enquiry officer, other than Shri K.K. Singh, to ensure fairness in the proceedings. In the meanwhile, the applicant sought certain

MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

information by filing an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking details relating to the proposed recovery. The information sought under the RTI Act was subsequently supplied by the concerned authority, which revealed that the recovery was ordered without following the prescribed rules.The respondents have passed the impugned recovery order without following Rules 2704 and 2712 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual and without assigning any reasons, which is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The recovery has been ordered without conducting any enquiry, without giving opportunity of hearing, and without fixing any responsibility upon the applicant, causing serious prejudice to him.

Per contra, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that in the year 2005, the applicant was posted as Commercial Superintendent at Ballia Railway Station. During his posting at Ballia, the applicant was in-charge of the Goods Godown and was responsible for supervision of all work relating to the goods godown, including proper maintenance of records, recovery of railway dues from traders, issuance of money receipts, making correct entries in the registers, deposit of recovered amounts in the bank, and forwarding of the relevant T.R. Notes to the Gorakhpur Cash Office. The applicant was holding a higher supervisory post and, therefore, was fully responsible to ensure that the daily railway income was properly recovered, recorded, and deposited as per rules. Prior to the present dispute, an amount of Rs. 33,560/- relating to Ballia Goods Godown for the year 2005 was also found due against the applicant, which was already recovered during the years 2010 and 2011. On the representation of the applicant, the earlier enquiry officer Shri K.K. Singh was changed and Shri L.R. Kushwaha was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. During th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document