Recovery orders for alleged unauthorized absenteeism cannot be issued prior to the conclusion of departmental inquiry.

The petitioner, an employee of respondent No. 1 (DGVCL), was issued a show-cause notice on 30.11.2022 at the "fag end" of his career alleging unauthorized absenteeism in 2021–22 and misconduct dating back to 2004–05 and 2011–12.

Simultaneously, on 01.03.2023, a second show-cause notice was issued proposing the recovery of salary drawn during the period of alleged absence, leading to an order dated 10.04.2023 directing such recovery.

The petitioner retired on 30.10.2024, at which point the respondents withheld retiral benefits (approx. ₹32 lakh) and recovered salaries.

A departmental inquiry was initiated but not concluded; meanwhile, the recovered amount was kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) pursuant to an interim court order.

The petitioner challenged the recovery orders while agreeing to cooperate with the ongoing inquiry.

Whether the respondent authorities could legally order the recovery of salary for alleged unauthorized absenteeism before the final conclusion of the departmental inquiry and a formal finding of guilt.

Recovery of salary/financial benefits constitutes a civil consequence with serious implications, which can only follows a determination of guilt in a duly concluded disciplinary proceeding.

The court relied on the constitutional mandate of fairness under Article 226, holding that administrative actions must not be arbitrary or constitute a "colourable exercise of power".

An employee cannot be subjected to punishment (recovery) based on unsubstantiated allegations that remain the subject of a pending adjudication.

The court observed that while the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the notice dated 30.11.2022 were still pending, the respondents unilaterally issued a recovery order on 10.04.2023.

The court reasoned that this approach "pre-judged" the issue, as the foundational allegation of absenteeism had not been legally established through the inquiry . By recovering the salary before the inquiry concluded, the respondents acted on a "presumption of guilt" rather than a finding of misconduct.

The court found this to be legally unsustainable and arbitrary, as it effectively punished the petitioner before the completion of the due process required to fasten civil liability.

The court ordered the immediate release of the FDR amount to the petitioner; however, the court directed the petitioner to furnish an undertaking within seven days to refund the amount should the pending departmental inquiry eventually result in an adverse finding.

The respondents were directed to conclude the inquiry independently and in accordance with law.