Recovery of pecuniary loss requires a reasoned finding of each employee’s individual contribution.

The applicant, an Assistant Executive Engineer, was held jointly responsible with a Junior Engineer for a reported shortage of MS pipes valued at ₹34,39,141.

The departmental order dated 14 October 2020 directed recovery of the loss in equal shares; a further order dated 26 February 2021 directed recovery of ₹17,19,570 from the applicant.

He challenged the inquiry report and recovery orders, contending that other officials had custody of the stores and that their roles were not properly considered.

The respondents maintained that the recovery followed a departmental inquiry.

The applicant had earlier challenged a recovery action in SWP No. 504/2015, in which the High Court stated that recovery could be made only after due process and an opportunity of hearing

The Tribunal framed the central question as whether the applicant’s half-share of the loss could fairly and legally be imposed without clearly determining the individual roles of the officials concerned

Whether recovery of 50% of the assessed loss could be sustained against the applicant without a reasoned determination of his individual or contributory responsibility

Whether the roles of other officials connected with custody, supervision, transfer of stores and issuance of the No Demand Certificate required consideration before apportioning the loss

Whether the applicant was entitled to refund or adjustment of amounts already recovered and reconsideration of consequential service and monetary benefits

Rule 30(v) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 permits recovery from an employee’s pay of the whole or part of pecuniary loss caused to Government by that employee’s negligence or breach of orders; such recovery is a statutory penalty and requires a finding linking the employee’s conduct to the loss

Supervisory position alone does not justify automatic or predetermined recovery, although established negligence contributing to the loss may warrant recovery even without proof of personal gain or actual misappropriation

The amount recovered should bear a reasonable relationship to the employee’s established contribution to the loss and that apportionment must rest on a fair assessment of individual responsibility.

The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant could avoid all responsibility merely because he claimed not to have physical custody of the pipes; his supervisory role and the inquiry findings against him were relevant

However, the record also raised questions about the custody and handover of the stores, the No Demand Certificate issued during the applicant’s absence, and the actions of other officials.

The authority had divided the total loss equally between the applicant and another officer without adequately explaining why the applicant’s contribution was precisely 50%

The Tribunal declined either to endorse that division or to substitute its own percentage, holding that individual responsibility had to be determined through a reasoned process, with an opportunity to be heard for any person against whom an adverse finding was proposed

The Government Orders dated 14 October 2020 and 26 February 2021 were set aside only insofar as they finally imposed recovery of ₹17,19,570 on the applicant based on an equal 50% division.

The matter was remitted for a fresh, reasoned determination of the individual and contributory responsibility of the applicant and other officials, preferably within four months; no further recovery from the applicant was permitted pending that decision.

Any excess already recovered must be refunded, with consequential service-benefit adjustments as admissible, within two months of the fresh decision.

The Tribunal made no finding of guilt against the other officials and declined to order unconditional payment of the applicant’s claimed salary arrears