Reimbursement cannot be ordered when the claimant fails to establish the genuineness of disputed bills.

The applicant, a retired Deputy Director in the Hindi Teaching Scheme, sought transfer-related claims after retiring on 31 December 2022, including reimbursement for transporting her personal effects.

She submitted her claim and supporting bills on 16 May 2023; the respondents identified discrepancies, including the absence of original bills, inconsistent bill details, a difference between the claimed transport charge and the payment record, and doubts about the transporter’s addresses.

The respondents conducted inquiries into the transporter and its addresses and concluded that the transport documents appeared to be unreliable.

During the proceedings, the respondents paid the applicant’s CTG and airfare claims, but the disputed transport claim remained unpaid.

The applicant sought an order directing payment of the outstanding TA and CTG, with interest.

Whether the applicant established that the bills supporting her transport claim were genuine and sufficient to entitle her to reimbursement

Whether the Tribunal should direct payment of the disputed transport claim where the respondents had identified unresolved discrepancies in the supporting documents

The Tribunal cited no specific statute, regulation, or precedent.

It applied the principle that a reimbursement claim based on supporting bills may be honoured only where the claimant establishes the genuineness and reliability of those documents.

Where material discrepancies remain unresolved, and payment could expose the disbursing authority to audit scrutiny, the Tribunal will not direct payment on the basis of doubtful documents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not adequately explained the discrepancies in the transport documents, including differences in bill and vehicle details, the absence of an original bill, the mismatch between the claimed amount and the payment record, and the inability of officials to verify the transporter’s stated addresses.

It considered the applicant’s explanation that the goods had been transferred between vehicles unpersuasive and noted that the genuineness of the bills was disputed.

Given those unresolved doubts and the potential for audit scrutiny, the Tribunal declined to order reimbursement.

No costs were ordered.