LTC travel restrictions not communicated through regular channels before journey cannot sustain disciplinary action.

The applicant, a Fitter-Auto at Vehicle Factory Jabalpur (VFJ), availed Leave Travel Concession (LTC) to Gangtok by air on May 17, 2012

Following an inquiry, a charge sheet was issued on May 23, 2016, alleging that the applicant purchased air tickets from an unauthorized private travel agent, violating Ministry of Finance (MoF) instructions dated September 16, 2010

The Disciplinary Authority initially imposed a reduction in pay, which the Appellate Authority, via an order dated December 5, 2018, converted to a "Censure" while directing full recovery of the LTC amount with penal interest

The applicant contended he was unaware of the 2010 instructions as they were only circulated locally by the General Manager, VFJ, on December 31, 2012—seven months after his journey

After the Tribunal initially dismissed the O.A., the Madhya Pradesh High Court remanded the matter to re-evaluate the case in light of the precedent H.L. Barai v. Union of India

1. Whether the Ministry of Finance OM dated September 16, 2010, could be applied to a journey performed prior to its formal local circulation via Factory Orders

2. Whether the applicant's case is squarely covered by the precedent in H.L. Barai v. Union of India (O.A. 775/2014)

The Tribunal relied on the principle that administrative instructions must be effectively communicated to employees through established channels, such as Factory Orders, before penalties for non-compliance can be imposed

It applied the precedent from H.L. Barai v. Union of India (O.A. 775/2014), which held that the MoF instructions of September 16, 2010, cannot be applied retrospectively to journeys completed before those instructions were circulated to the workforce

The Tribunal observed that while the MoF issued the OM in 2010, the respondents failed to circulate it to employees at VFJ until December 31, 2012

Since the applicant performed his journey in May 2012, he could not be held liable for violating instructions that had not yet been formally communicated to him

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the instructions were available on a web portal, noting that the standard practice for informing employees is through Factory Orders

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the lapse lay with the respondents for delayed communication, rather than the employee

However, it noted that the applicant is only entitled to the admissible government tariff; any amount claimed in excess of the official rate may be recovered, but without interest

It set aside the punishment of "Censure" and the order for recovery of the LTC amount with interest

The respondents were directed to process the LTC claim and refund the amount already recovered from the applicant (approximately ₹5,000 per month from January to May 2019) within 60 days

The respondents were permitted to recover only the difference between the applicant's claim and the admissible government tariff, strictly without interest