Surjeet Singh vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

OA/527/2024

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH

(Circuit Sitting at Vijayawada)

OA/021/527/2024

th
VIJAYAWADA, this the 12 day of October, 2026
HON’BLE Mr. MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE Mr. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Surjeet Singh, S/o. Babu Ram,
Aged about 53 years,
Working as OS, O/o Sr. DSTE/GNT,
R/o. A-3 Prodvesh Bommasethi,
nd
2 line Rajendra Nagar,
Pathabhipuram, Guntur.
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mrs. Rachna Kumari)

Vs.
1. The Union of India, rep. by The General Manager, South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
2. The Chief Signal Telecommunication Engineer, South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Guntur
Division, Guntur.
4. The Sr. Divisional Signal & Telecommunication Engineer, South Central
Railway, Guntur Division, Guntur.
5. The Additional Divisional Signal & Telecommunication Engineer, South
Central Railway, Guntur Division, Guntur.

… Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, Sr. PC for CG)

Page 1 of 4

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad ,
Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER=b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN= PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Location: Date: 2026 10 26 14:57:57-08'00'

OA/527/2024

ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following
relief:
“(a) to call for the records and set aside the impugned proceeding
letter No. GNT/SG/Stores/Accounts paras of OS/S&T/ST/NLPD
dated 05.04.2024, the impugned proceeding letter No. GNT/SG/E/31
dated 05.04.2024 and the impugned show cause notice No.
GNT/SG/Stock sheet/2018-19/SS dated 28.03.2022 of the 4th
Respondent towards recovery of the shortage of material amounting
to Rs. 18,64,462/-, without considering the plea of the applicant in his
representation dated 30.05.2022, and for having proceeded with
recovery of Rs. 18,066/- from April 2024 without conducting proper
enquiry as per the Rules, declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal,
unwarranted and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India;
(b) to direct the Respondents to refund the amount already recovered
before proceeding further duly giving reasonable opportunity to the
applicant to prove his innocence and non-involvement; with all the
consequential benefits and be pleased to pass such other order or
orders as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.”

2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant drew our
attention to the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 28.10.2025, which reads
as under:
“Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that, without following
the proper procedure, respondents have put the applicant to hardship
by way of recovery. It was only after the filing of this O.A. that a
Page 2 of 4

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad ,
Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER=b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN= PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Location: Date: 2026 10 26 14:57:57-08'00'

OA/527/2024

Charge Memo has been served under Rule 9 of RS (D&A) Rules, 1968,
vide Memo dated 31.07.2024. Rejoinder has also been filed in this
case. There is no mention of the charge memo in the reply filed by the
respondents.
Recovery from a delinquent has to be made, by way of punishment,
after following the due procedure. In the present case, the recovery
order, dt. 05.04.2024, precedes even the charge memo. It has been
submitted on behalf of the applicant that the department has not
proceeded in the DE after service of the charge memo, whereas the
recovery is continued. Prima facie, there are grounds for interfering
with the recovery orders, and it is felt necessary in the interest of
justice to stay the order of recovery, dt. 05.04.2024, till further orders.
Hence, further action on the recovery order is stayed.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly submits that the inquiry
proceedings against the charge memo are already over and the Inquiry Officer
has already submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority for consideration
of the case of the applicant and for taking suitable and appropriate action based
on the inquiry report. She submits that despite such submission, no steps have
been taken by the Disciplinary Authority for examining the Inquiry Report and
passing appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law.
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the interim order was passed at the relevant point of time because the inquiry
was not concluded and that this does not stop the respondents from initiating
recovery proceedings. He further submits that the recovery order is not
inter-linked to the charge memo and is independent of the same and, therefore,
the interim order cannot be made absolute.
5. In rejoinder to the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the
respondents relying upon the averments in the counter affidavit, it has been
Page 3 of 4

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad ,
Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER=b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN= PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Location: Date: 2026 10 26 14:57:57-08'00'

OA/527/2024

submitted on behalf of the applicant that the charge memo relates to the purported
misdemeanour which arises out of the recovery proceedings only, and that the
cause of action of the charge memo and of the recovery so made is identical.
6. Be that as it may, since the matter is sub judice before the Disciplinary
Authority, it is appropriate that the interim order passed by this Tribunal on
28.10.2025 be made absolute until the final order is passed by the Disciplinary
Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, while passing appropriate orders
vis-à-vis the inquiry report, shall also pass appropriate orders vis-à-vis the
recovery proceedings. A reasoned order shall also be passed on recovery, if any,
to be made from the applicant, after giving him an opportunity of hearing.
7. In view of the above, the O.A. is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

/pv/

Page 4 of 4

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad ,
Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER=b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN= PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Location: Date: 2026 10 26 14:57:57-08'00'