Recovery of pecuniary loss from retired Group A officers for unauthorized administrative actions is legally permissible.

The applicant, a retired Chief General Manager of PFRDA, challenged orders dated 02.12.2020 and 17.11.2021, which authorized the recovery of ₹3,13,129/- from his leave encashment

On 28.12.2015, while serving as Head of Department (HOD) of Human Resources, the applicant issued an office order regarding Leave Fare Concession (LFC)

While the Competent Authority had approved aligning PFRDA’s perks with SEBI (which involved specific financial ceilings), the applicant’s issued order instead increased the travel distance entitlement from 2500 kms to 4500 kms without explicit approval

The Chairperson flagged this "aberration" in 2016 and 2017, noting that the unauthorized distance increase caused pecuniary loss to the Authority

A memo was issued to the applicant a day before his retirement on 31.10.2018

Following his retirement and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal in a previous OA (No. 2242/2021), the respondents issued a speaking order confirming the recovery to adjust for the financial loss

1. Whether the recovery of pecuniary loss from the applicant’s retiral benefits was legally sustainable after his superannuation

2. Whether the recovery violated the principles of natural justice

3. Whether the applicant, as a Group ‘A’ officer, could seek protection against recovery under the guidelines established in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih

The court primarily considered the PFRDA (Employees' Service) Regulations, 2015, specifically Rule 81, which permits the recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Authority by an employee's negligence or breach of orders

The court also examined the protective doctrines regarding recoveries from retired employees established by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which prohibits recoveries from Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees or where recovery would be iniquitous

Additionally, it referenced Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana, and Col. B.L. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India regarding the limits of administrative recovery

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the Competent Authority had approved the increase in LFC distance from 2500 kms to 4500 kms; rather, the applicant’s own admission suggested the file was submitted for "post-facto" settlement of claims arising from the unauthorized order

The court noted that the respondents followed the principles of natural justice by providing the applicant with multiple opportunities to respond and full access to relevant files for inspection

Distinguishing the present case from Rafiq Masih, the Tribunal observed that the applicant was a high-ranking Group ‘A’ officer and the recovery was not a "penalty" for a mistake by the employer, but a restitution for a specific financial loss caused by the applicant’s own unauthorized administrative act

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the recovered amount involved public money subject to statutory audit by the CAG

The court ruled that since no formal penalty was imposed and the recovery was merely a restitution of loss facilitated by a fair procedure, the action was just and proper

The applicant was denied any further relief or costs, and the recovery of ₹3,13,129/- from his leave encashment was upheld