CAT Keeps Railway Employee’s Recovery Over Alleged ₹18.64 Lakh Material Shortage On Hold Until Disciplinary Authority’s Final Order

The applicant, an Office Superintendent in the South Central Railway, challenged proceedings seeking recovery of ₹18,64,462 for an alleged shortage of materials, including a recovery order dated 5 April 2024 and a show-cause notice dated 28 March 2022.

He contended that recovery of ₹18,066 per month had begun without a proper inquiry and sought refund of amounts recovered.

The Tribunal stayed further action under the recovery order on 28 October 2025, noting that the recovery order predated the charge memo and that the inquiry had not then concluded.

At the hearing of the application, the applicant stated that the inquiry was complete and the Inquiry Officer had submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority; the respondents argued that recovery was independent of the charge memo.

The applicant maintained that both arose from the same alleged misconduct.

The Tribunal stated that recovery from a delinquent employee by way of punishment must follow due procedure.

The disciplinary inquiry was initiated by a charge memo under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

The applicant invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in challenging the recovery, but the Tribunal did not decide those claims on their merits.

The Tribunal noted that the inquiry had concluded but the Disciplinary Authority had not yet considered the Inquiry Officer’s report.

Although the respondents characterised recovery as independent of the charge memo, the applicant asserted that both proceedings concerned the same alleged misconduct.

Without determining that dispute or the merits of the recovery, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to maintain the existing protection until the Disciplinary Authority made its decision.

It therefore directed that the authority also address recovery and provide the applicant an opportunity to be heard.

The Disciplinary Authority was directed to pass appropriate orders on the inquiry report and the recovery proceedings, and to issue a reasoned order on any recovery proposed after giving the applicant an opportunity of hearing.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of; no order as to costs was made.