Refund of deposited amounts is premature until disciplinary proceedings finally determine liability.

The applicant, while serving as Sub-Postmaster, Chandiya Post Office, was subjected to a preliminary inquiry concerning alleged irregularities in manual posting under different POSB GL heads in the SAP system during 03.07.2020–04.07.2022.

A major-penalty charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging misappropriation of Government money, was issued on 02.03.2023.

On 07.03.2023, the applicant deposited ₹7,89,028/- and contended that the deposit was made under departmental pressure.

He subsequently asserted that the actual Government loss was only ₹6,89,028/- and sought refund of the alleged excess amount of ₹1,00,000/- through representations dated 05.02.2024, 04.07.2024 and 18.08.2024.

After the Tribunal directed the respondents in OA No. 964 of 2024 to decide those representations by a reasoned and speaking order, the respondents rejected the claim by order dated 05.12.2024.

The applicant challenged that order and sought refund of ₹1,00,000/- with 12% interest.

The disciplinary proceedings remained pending and had not attained finality when the present OA was decided.

Whether the applicant could claim refund of ₹1,00,000/- on the basis of his own calculation that the actual Government loss was ₹6,89,028/-, while the disciplinary proceedings concerning the alleged financial irregularities were still pending.

Whether the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 was liable to be quashed for allegedly failing to properly consider the applicant’s claim and for being non-speaking.

Whether the applicant was entitled to interest on the alleged excess deposit.

The Tribunal applied Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing major-penalty disciplinary proceedings.

A charge-sheet contains allegations and particulars forming the basis of disciplinary proceedings and is not, by itself, a final or conclusive determination of Government loss or the employee’s financial liability.

The determination of the actual loss and the employee’s liability must follow consideration of the evidence, the Inquiry Officer’s report and a final order by the competent authority under the applicable service rules.

A claim for refund of an amount allegedly deposited in excess cannot be enforced before the disciplinary proceedings and the consequent determination of liability attain finality.

The Tribunal also treated its earlier order in OA No. 964 of 2024 as limited to requiring a reasoned decision on the representations; it did not adjudicate the merits of the refund claim.

The applicant’s claim rested solely on his own computation that the Government’s actual loss was ₹6,89,028/-.

However, the alleged financial irregularities, the extent of loss and the applicant’s responsibility were the subject matter of pending disciplinary proceedings.

Since no final inquiry report, finding of the competent authority or other conclusive determination establishing the loss at ₹6,89,028/- was produced, the Tribunal could not assume that the ₹7,89,028/- deposit exceeded the applicant’s ultimate liability.

The amount could ultimately be found to be excessive, equal to, or less than the amount recoverable.

The assertion that the payment was made under pressure did not independently establish entitlement to a refund, because refund still depended on the final determination of liability.

The respondents had complied with the earlier direction by considering the representations and passing the order dated 05.12.2024; mere dissatisfaction with that conclusion did not justify interference or grant of interest.

It declined to interfere with the order dated 05.12.2024 and dismissed the Original Application.

The applicant was granted liberty to pursue any remedy available in law after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and final determination of his liability, if any amount was found refundable or otherwise payable to him.

No order was made as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.