An independent inquiry may be required before fixing responsibility when overpayment rules prescribe no procedure.

The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) challenged two Central Administrative Tribunal orders concerning overpayments to employees of Madurai Coats (Private Limited).

The Tribunal had directed the EPFO to appoint an Independent Inquiry Officer to examine the applicants’ defence and determine whether other persons were responsible for the lapses.

The EPFO relied on the Manual of Accounting Procedure, which provides for an Overpayment Review Committee to examine the circumstances of an overpayment and fix responsibility among officers or officials.

The officers had contended before the Tribunal that responsibility could not be attributed solely to them.

The Tribunal’s orders were challenged in these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s direction to appoint an Independent Inquiry Officer was sustainable despite the Manual of Accounting Procedure assigning overpayment review and responsibility-fixing to the Overpayment Review Committee.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s orders warranted interference in the EPFO’s writ petitions.

Article 226 of the Constitution provides the High Court’s jurisdiction to review the challenged Tribunal orders.

Under clauses 14.6.2 and 14.6.3 of the EPFO Manual of Accounting Procedure, an Overpayment Review Committee—comprising the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as Chairperson and two specified members—must review overpayments, examine relevant records and circumstances, and fix responsibility and recoverable amounts.

The Manual does not prescribe the manner in which the Committee must conduct that inquiry or reach its conclusions.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court accepted that the Manual empowered the Committee to fix responsibility, but observed that it did not specify how that responsibility was to be determined.

Because the officers had argued that other officials might also have been responsible, and the Tribunal considered that responsibility could not be properly fixed without an adequate inquiry, the direction for an Independent Inquiry Officer was not inconsistent with any prescribed procedure in the Manual.

The Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s orders.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.