THE UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRABHU NANDAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Recovery to the tune of Rs. 2,21,000/-odd was sought to be recovered by the Disciplinary Authority for the so called shortage in the stores of which the private respondent was supposed to be in charge as Head Clerk (operating). The employee decided to assail the order of recovery dated 19.12013 and also sought a prayer that the recovered amount from DCRG be ordered to be refunded on many a grounds. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna allowed the OA 29 of 2014 vide its order dated 28.11.2017 holding that no proper enquiry was held and, therefore, the order of recovery, which is an order of punishment having civil consequences, cannot be allowed to stand.

(3.) Counsel for the Railways submits that the private respondent after all was incharge. He had signed the inventory and receipts. An inspection was carried out in his presence and, therefore, the natural corollary was that the shortfalls had to be made by him.