Recovery from an employee must await completed disciplinary proceedings and individualized quantification of proven liability.

The applicant, a retired Deputy Postmaster, faced disciplinary proceedings arising from alleged involvement in a Government funds loss of ₹28,56,610.

Those proceedings remained pending after her compulsory retirement and were continued under Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

A previous recovery certificate issued under the Public Accounts Default Act, 1850, had been quashed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 285/2020 on 4 December 2023, with liberty to the respondents to recover the loss in accordance with law and principles of natural justice.

The department subsequently issued a fresh recovery certificate on 10 July 2025, followed by a recovery citation; the applicant challenged the fresh certificate in this O.A.

1. Whether the respondents could issue a fresh recovery certificate for the full alleged loss while the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant remained pending and without determining the loss attributable to her through due process.

2. Whether the recovery certificate dated 10 July 2025 complied with the Tribunal’s directions in O.A. No. 285/2020 and the requirements of natural justice.

The Tribunal’s order in O.A. No. 285/2020 required any recovery to follow due procedure and the principles of natural justice; it also stated that recovery requires a proven allegation and proper quantification of the employee’s liability.

Where an employee is a co-accused, recovery must be based on proven misconduct and a reasoned calculation of the amount attributable to that employee.

Disciplinary proceedings against the applicant continued under Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

The earlier order referred to D.C. Bhatia v. Union of India, Sushil Kumar Bajpai v. Union of India and Ram Darash Chauhan v. Union of India in discussing the limits on recovery absent lawful determination of liability.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had issued a fresh certificate for the entire sum of ₹28,56,610 without first completing the pending disciplinary proceedings or quantifying the portion of the loss attributable to the applicant.

The respondents’ own case described her as a co-accused, making an individualized assessment of proven misconduct and liability necessary.

Reissuing a recovery demand did not satisfy the earlier direction to follow due procedure and natural justice; the certificate therefore lacked the required determination and reasoning.

It quashed the certificate and directed the respondents to comply with the observations and directions in O.A. No. 285/2020 before issuing any future recovery order, including determining liability in accordance with law.

The O.A. was allowed; there was no order as to costs.