Employee liable for contributory negligence but not litigation costs without decision-making role.

Dhakan Lal, while working as a Bill Clerk, was issued a charge sheet on 10.02.2010 for irregular payment of bonus to two Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS).

Initially, a recovery of Rs. 15,800/- was ordered on 08.04.2010, which was later enhanced to Rs. 68,633/- on 21.07.2011.

Following a petition, de novo proceedings were initiated, and a fresh charge sheet was issued on 08.02.2013, including a loss of Rs. 2,22,944/-, which encompassed litigation costs of Rs. 1,71,630/-.

The recovery of Rs. 68,633/- was confirmed by the appellate authority on 10.01.2014, and the revising authority rejected the applicant's petition on 27.05.2015.

The applicant contended that he merely complied with orders of higher authorities noted in the Revision Book, which was not provided to him for defense, and that he should not be responsible for litigation costs.

The respondents argued that the Revision Book order for bonus was only for regular employees, not GDS, and that the applicant was responsible for contributory negligence under rule 58 of FHB-I.

The Revision Book was described as an informal internal document for administrative convenience.

Whether the applicant was responsible for the irregular payment of bonus to the two GDS employees.

Whether the applicant should be held responsible for the cost of litigation incurred by the Department.

The court applied Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.

It also considered Rule 58 of the Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules, Part I (FHB-I) regarding "Responsibility for losses, etc.," which stipulates that a Government Officer is personally responsible for losses sustained by the Government through fraud or negligence on their part, or for contributing to a loss by their own action or negligence.

The court examined the nature of the "Revision Book" as an internal rough/working register for administrative convenience and communication to subordinate staff.

The court affirmed that irregular bonus payment occurred.

Regarding the applicant's responsibility, the court noted that the relevant part of the Revision Book, a document described as an internal rough/working register, was not made available to the applicant by the respondents.

Citing prejudice due to this non-availability, the court granted the applicant the "benefit of doubt" and accepted his contention that he acted in compliance with superior orders.

However, even with this, the court invoked the principle of contributory negligence under Rule 58 of FHB-I.

As a Bill Clerk responsible for preparing bills, the applicant had a duty to apply his mind and point out errors if instructions were not in conformity with rules, thus his "blind adherence to instructions" constituted contributory negligence.

On the issue of litigation costs, the court found force in the applicant's contention, reasoning that the decisions to recover the bonus from GDS and to litigate were made by superiors, not the applicant, and he had no role in these decisions.

Therefore, the responsibility for incurring litigation costs, vicarious or otherwise, could not be assigned to the applicant, who was in a subordinate position.

The court agreed with the penalty of recovery for pecuniary loss but opined that the quantum should be confined to the amount of irregular bonus paid (without interest cost) proportionately attributable to the applicant.

The cost of litigation was excluded from the recovery.

The respondents were directed to modify the order dated 27.05.2015 to limit the recovery amount as specified and refund the balance, without interest, to the applicants within three months.