Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Rakesh Kumar vs Rural Development Department on 5 February, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 74/2024
-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 74/2024
Reserved on:- 11.08.2025
Pronounced on: - 05.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
Rakesh Kumar Age 53 years S/o OM Parkash Sharma R/o Village
Tanda Tehsil R.S.Pura District Jammu, 181102.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma )
VERSUS
1. Union Territory of J&K Through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.
Department of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Civil
Secretariat, Jammu-180001.
2. Mandeep Kour (IAS) the then Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.
Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Civil Secretariat, Jammu
Presently Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Housing and Urban
Development Deptt. Civil Secretariat, Jammu-180001.
3. Director Rural Development Department, Jammu-180016.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 74/2024
4. District Programme Coordinator-MGNREGA Reasi. 182311.
5. Assistant District Programme Coordinator-MGNREGA /Assistant
Commissioner Development, Reasi-182311.
6. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Wing, Rural Development
Department, Reasi-182311.
7. Ankush Verma Technical Assistant Panchayat Suketer Ghyala,
Block Reasi District Reasi-182311.
8. Rameez Ahmad Dar Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Suketer
Ghyala, Block Reasi District Reasi--182311.
9. Amit Mishra Gram Rozgar Sevak Panchayat Suketer Ghyala,
Block Reasi District Reasi-182311.
10. Mohd. Latief Sarpanch Panchayat Halqa Suketer Ghyala, Block
Reasi District Reasi-182311.
11..District Treasury Officer, Udhampur-182101.
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thappa, ld. AAG)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 74/2024
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a. allow the instant Original Application;
b. quash impugned Govt. Order no. 26-RD&PR of 2024 dated 08.01.2024 passed by respondent no. 2. whereby and whereunder sanction was accorded for recovery of an amount to the tune of 3,11,660/- from the salary of the applicant and further direction was issued to the Assistant Commissioner (Development) Udhampur to effect the recovery from the applicant from his salary and make entry to that effect in the service book of the applicant;
c. ANY other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: O.A. No. 74/2024
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicant, Rakesh Kumar, aged about 53 years, was working as Block Development Officer, Reasi. He has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, assailing Government Order No. 26-RD&PR of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, whereby recovery of an amount of ₹3,11,660/- has been ordered from his salary with a further direction to make an entry to that effect in his service book.
b) The case of the applicant, in brief, is that works relating to construction/renovation and desilting of a pond (Amrit Sarovar) at Village Trintha, Ward No. 7, Panchayat Suketar Ghyala, Block Reasi, were taken up under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA).
According to the applicant, under the statutory scheme of the J&K Panchayati Raj Act, 1989, the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, the MGNREGA Act, 2005, and Government Order No. 207- Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: O.A. No. 74/2024 RD&PR of 2019 dated 04.07.2019, the identification of works, preparation of estimates, grant of administrative approval, technical sanction, and execution of works vest primarily with the Panchayat and designated implementing authorities, and not with the Block Development Officer.
c) It is pleaded that in the present case, the work was identified by the Panchayat through a resolution dated 29.11.2019; administrative approval was granted by the Assistant District Programme Coordinator; technical sanction was accorded by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Wing; and authorization for execution was issued by the Sarpanch of the concerned Panchayat. The role of the applicant, as Block Development Officer, was limited to monitoring and release of funds as per sanctioned approvals. Pursuant thereto, an amount of ₹2.85 lakhs was released towards the material component on 17.08.2023.
d) After completion of the work and release of payment, the applicant was served with a show cause notice dated Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: O.A. No. 74/2024 03.01.2024 alleging that although the pond had been constructed, it was without water and had become a dumping site, and that there was misappropriation of funds in connivance with other officials. The applicant was directed to appear personally on the very next day, i.e., 04.01.2024, whereas other officials were granted seven days' time to respond. The applicant submitted his reply on 04.01.2024, denying the allegations and asserting that the approvals were granted by competent authorities and that dumping of garbage was due to extraneous factors beyond his control.
e) It is further averred that on 04.01.2024 itself, respondent no. 2 was transferred from the post of Commissioner/Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department. Despite the said transfer, respondent no. 2 passed the impugned Government Order dated 08.01.2024, holding the applicant responsible for identification of the site without ensuring availability of water source and sanctioning recovery of ₹3,11,660/- from his salary, Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: O.A. No. 74/2024 with consequential directions for entry in his service record and recovery through the District Treasury Officer.
f) Aggrieved, the applicant has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that it was passed by an authority lacking competence on the date of issuance, that it violates principles of natural justice, that no disciplinary proceedings under the J&K CCA Rules, 1956 were initiated or concluded, and that the statutory scheme does not fasten personal liability upon the applicant in the manner done by the respondents.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have filed their written statement raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Original Application. It is contended that no constitutional or legal right of the applicant has been infringed and that disputed questions of fact are involved, which cannot be adjudicated by this Tribunal. It is further pleaded that the impugned order was Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: O.A. No. 74/2024 issued strictly in accordance with law after obtaining a detailed ground report.
b) On merits, the respondents assert that during verification of records and inspection of the work site, it was found that instead of a functional pond/Amrit Sarovar, only a partial drain existed at the site and that there was no identifiable water body corresponding to the expenditure incurred. Photographs annexed with the official record allegedly revealed absence of any impounded water and accumulation of garbage at the site.
Despite this, an amount of ₹3,89,572/- had been released, resulting in loss to the Government exchequer.
c) It is the case of the respondents that the applicant, while functioning as Block Development Officer, identified the site for construction of Amrit Sarovar without ensuring the availability of a water source, thereby defeating the very objective of the scheme. The respondents maintain that a show cause notice was duly issued to the applicant, his reply was examined, and upon finding the explanation unsatisfactory, the Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: O.A. No. 74/2024 competent authority sanctioned recovery of ₹3,11,660/- from his salary. The respondents deny any violation of natural justice and assert that the impugned order was passed to safeguard public funds and ensure accountability.
d) The respondents thus pray for dismissal of the Original Application, contending that the applicant failed to discharge his duties diligently and that the recovery ordered is lawful, justified, and in public interest
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. The applicant, while working as Block Development Officer, Reasi, has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quashment of Govt. Order No. 26-RD&PR of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, whereby recovery of ₹3,11,660/- has been ordered from his salary with further direction to effect entry in the service book and to recover through the concerned Treasury/departmental authorities. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: O.A. No. 74/2024
6. The applicant's case is that the work in question pertains to construction/renovation and de-silting of pond/Amrit Sarovar at Village Trintha, Ward No. 7, Panchayat Suketar Ghyala, Block Reasi, taken up under MGNREGA/Mission Amrit Sarovar. He pleads that as per the statutory framework and the procedure adopted, administrative and technical approvals were granted by the competent authorities and the Panchayat functionaries/implementing agency played the central role, whereas his role as BDO was essentially supervisory/monitoring and limited release of funds as per approvals. He further pleads that he was served a show cause notice dated 03.01.2024 calling upon him to appear on 04.01.2024, and he submitted his reply on 04.01.2024. It is also pleaded that respondent No.2 stood transferred on 04.01.2024, yet the impugned order came to be passed on 08.01.2024 directing recovery from the applicant's salary.
7. The respondents, while opposing the OA, contend that on verification/inspection of records and site, it was found that instead of a functional pond/Amrit Sarovar there was no corresponding water Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: O.A. No. 74/2024 body; garbage had accumulated; and despite that, payment/bill amounting to ₹3,89,572/- stood released. They submit that the applicant, being then BDO, negligently identified the site without ensuring availability of water source, thereby defeating the scheme and causing loss to public exchequer. They assert that a show cause notice was issued, replies were examined, and thereafter recovery of ₹3,11,660/- was sanctioned to be deposited back in the scheme account; hence the OA deserves dismissal.
8. The core issue is whether the respondents could have ordered punitive/penal recovery from salary and directed adverse entry in service record on the basis of a brief show cause, without holding a regular enquiry as contemplated under the applicable disciplinary framework.
9. It is not in dispute that the impugned order proceeds on allegations of serious nature--negligence leading to failure of the project and implied diversion/misappropriation of funds--and fastens personal liability upon the applicant by directing recovery from salary and entry in service book. Such consequences are not innocuous. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: O.A. No. 74/2024 Recovery from salary on the premise of "fault"/"negligence" and fastening financial liability is, in substance, a measure founded on culpability. Once the State seeks to impose a civil consequence of this nature, the action must satisfy fairness, reasonableness and due process, which are the soul of principles of natural justice.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that natural justice is not an empty formality; it is intended to ensure fairness in administrative action involving civil consequences (A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and Canara Bank v. Debasis Das). Where the action is founded on allegations affecting the employee and results in adverse consequences, the employee must have a real, effective and reasonable opportunity to meet the case. A "short" or "formal" show cause, without disclosure of material relied upon, without an opportunity to test/controvert the adverse material, and without a structured procedure consistent with the disciplinary rules, cannot be treated as compliance.
11. In the present matter, the respondents rely upon a "ground report", photographs, file notings/records, and site inspection conclusions to Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: O.A. No. 74/2024 justify recovery. However, the impugned order is not preceded by any regular disciplinary proceeding under the relevant CCA Rules, nor does the record show a procedure akin to framing of definite imputations, supply of relied upon material, examination of responsibility through enquiry, and a finding of guilt/culpable negligence after due process. In fact, even the respondents' own stand is that replies were "examined" and thereafter recovery was sanctioned. This is plainly short of what law expects where the State seeks to attribute blame and impose pecuniary liability.
12. It also matters that the show cause required appearance on the next day, thereby curtailing the applicant's meaningful opportunity to defend. A reasonable opportunity is not merely an opportunity in form; it must be effective in substance. The process adopted, therefore, suffers from procedural unfairness.
13. Further, it is well settled that an order must stand on its own reasons and cannot be supplemented later by explanations in pleadings. When the impugned action has penal consequences, reasons and procedure assume even greater importance.
Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: O.A. No. 74/2024
14. At the same time, this Tribunal is conscious that the Government is not remediless. If there has been negligence, dereliction, misconduct or loss to public exchequer, the respondents are fully entitled to proceed in accordance with law--namely, by initiating proceedings under the applicable CCA Rules, holding a proper enquiry, fixing responsibility, and then taking such action as is permissible. What cannot be sustained is recovery first, enquiry later.
15. Thus, on the touchstone of natural justice and the requirement of fair procedure in matters involving civil/pecuniary consequences, the impugned Government Order directing recovery from salary cannot be permitted to stand.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the Original Application is allowed. The Govt. Order No. 26-RD&PR of 2024 dated 08.01.2024, to the extent it sanctions recovery of ₹3,11,660/- from the salary of the applicant and directs entry in his service book/implementation through treasury or departmental authorities, is quashed. Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: O.A. No. 74/2024
17. If any amount has already been recovered from the applicant pursuant to the impugned order, the same shall be refunded/adjusted back in his favour within (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
18. It is clarified that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, which shall remain open to be examined in appropriate proceedings, if initiated.
19. No order as to costs.
(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Judicial Member /harshit / Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV