Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Ram Narayan Sah vs Railway on 12 January, 2026
1
O.A. No. 050/00795/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
O.A. No. 050/00795/2017
Reserved on:- 06.01.2026
Pronounced on ::- 12.01.2026
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER [J]
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]
Ram Narayan Sah, Son of Late Chandra Sah, Resident of Kashmiri
Hata, Mauna Fatak, P.O. & P.S.-Chapra,
P.S. Chapra, District
District-Chapra
Chapra (Bihar)
Presently working as C.T.T.I. N.E. Railway, Chapra under
Patna
Bench Administrative Control of Divisional Railway Manager
(Commercial) N.E. Railway, Varanasi (U.P.)
(U.P.).
POOJA Digitally signed
KUMARI
by POOJA
KUMARI
.........Applicant
Versus
1. The Union of India through General Manager, N.E. Railway,
Gorakhpur PIN-273165.
PIN
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, N.E. Railway, Varanasi.
221002.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) N.E. Railway
Varanasi. PIN-221002.
PIN
4. The D.R.M. (P) N.E. Railway, Varanasi. PTN
PTN-221002.
5. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager, N.E. Railway,
Varanasi. PIN - 221002.
........Respondents
For Applicant:-
Applicant: None
For Respondents:-
Respondents: Mr. RavindraRai, ld. ASC
2
O.A. No. 050/00795/2017
ORDER
1. The instant Original Application has been filed by ld. Counsel for the applicant for the following relief:
i. To quash and set aside order passed by Senior D.C.M, Varanasi contained in Annexure Annexure-A/2A/2 dated 26.07.2017 and proposed recovery of Rs.64744/ Rs.64744/- may please be stopped and amounts already recovered be refunded. ii. Any other order or orders as your Lordships may please deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. iii. Cost of the case may please be awarded to the applicant for unnecessary expenditure incurred in litigation, mental agony, financial harassment, sorrow, suffering and pain.
Patna
2. The brief facts of the case, case as per the OA filed by the applicant, are Bench that the applicant is is working as C.T.T.I., Chapra. He has performed POOJA Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI KUMARI the duties in night also in case of urgency as and when required and directed by the Sr. D.C.M. and accordingly, the Night Duty Allowance was claimed, granted by the competent authority vetted by associate account account Branch and passed for payment, which the applicant had received for performance of duty in night.
3. The instant application has been made against the letter No. गो// मरे / /वा/ वज dated 19.05.2017 issued ued by Sr. D.C.M./N.E. Railway, Varanasi vide which a sum of Rs.64,744/ Rs.64,744/- has been ordered to be recovered in installment of Rs.9,249/ Rs.9,249/- per month. A photo copy of the charge memorandum dated 19.05.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-1.
A
4. Accordingly, ccordingly, the deduction from the pay for th thee month of September, 2017 has been started, which is itself evident from the 3 O.A. No. 050/00795/2017 pay slips for the month of September September-October 2017. A photo copy of the said letter dated 26.07.2017 issued by Sr. D.C.M., Varanasi is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A A-2 2 and A photo copy of pay slips of the applicant for the month of September and October, 2017 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-3.
A
5. The applicant submitted defence to the charge memorandum dated 19.05.2017 to the Senior D.C.M./N.E. Railway, Varana Varanasi si on Patna Bench 02.06.2017 but it was not considered with open mind. A photo copy of defence dated 02.06.2017 is annexed herewith and POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed KUMARI KUMARI marked as Annexure A-4.
A
6. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal against order of Senior D.C.M. dated 26.07.2017 to A.D.R.M., V Varanasion aranasion 06.09.2017, which is still pending under consideration. A photo copy of appeal to ADRM/Varanasi dated 06.09.2017 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-5.
A
7. The deduction from pay has been ordered without any show cause Notice to the applicant, applicant, but it has been informed verbally that there has been wrong over payment on account of Night Duty Allowance during the period November, 2013 to August 2015.
8. The applicant had never misrepresented or defrauded but payment was made by Railway correctly for for the period applicant worked in night as per orders of higher competent authorities for which the night duty allowance was sanctioned by the competent authority, 4 O.A. No. 050/00795/2017 checked and passed by Associate Finance Branch i.e. Senior D.F.M., Varanasi, hence the deduc deduction tion from pay abruptly without any show cause or notice or without proving the alleged charge on plea of over payment is quite illegal, arbitrary, against rule, which deserves to be quashed and set aside and the amount already deducted be refunded. Hence, this O.A.
9. The Ld. Counsel for the applicant has not appeared today at the time of hearing. Hence, the Tribunal in exercise of the power under Patna Bench Rule 15 of CAT (Procedures) Rules, 1987 has decided to hear and decide the matter in the presence of the counsel for respondents and POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed KUMARI KUMARI the material available on record.It record.It will be pertinent to mention that the cause list of this tribunal for the day has clearly stated that in the matters pertaining to the year 2017(being the old matters) will not be adjourned. In the in instant stant case no application with prayer for adjournment on behalf of the applicant has been filed either, that could be the possible reason for consideration of adjournment. The applicant has taken the following grounds ground in the O.A. in support of his contention:
i. For that as reported in 1993 (25) ATC page 417 S.K. Chaterji V/S Union of India and others, CAT Kolkata Kolkata- no o recovery of over payment is permissible permissible- overpayment barred against applicant, who was employed in Railwa Railways, ys, was not entitled to IHRA but it was being wrongly paid to him for 17 years years--
Respondents also found at fault in allowing the wrong 5 O.A. No. 050/00795/2017 payment part of over payment recovered but further recovery stopped.
ii. For that no recovery can be made if over payment made not on account of an employee 2004 (1) ATJ High Court Patna 520 Kedar Nath Sahay V/S State of Bihar and others.
iii. For that as held by Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 2004 (1) ATJ 93, Bahadur Sinha V/S State of Bihar and others-Until Until a finding was record recorded ed that the person Patna Bench concerned committed misconduct or misappropriated the same no order of recovery can be passed against him. POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed KUMARI KUMARI iv. For that excess payment made due to wrong calculation of the relevant order by the authority concerned without any misrepresentation on by the employee. In such circumstances recovery of the payment already made restrained restrained-1995 1995 SCC (L&S) 248 Sahib Ram V/S State of Haryana and others. v. For that No recovery of over payment is permissible, if over payment made due to fault of employer.
10. Mr. Ravindra Rai, ld. ASC, appearing on behalf of respondents, has filed short reply on interim relief in which it was stated that tthe he impugned order dated 26.07.2017 passed by the Senior D.C.M., Varanasi (Respondent No. 3) contains a clerical/typing error wherein erein the name "Shri Mukherjee" was mentioned inadvertently instead of "Shri R. N. Sah". The said error has already been rectified by issuance of a corrigendum dated 01.01.2018, clearly 6 O.A. No. 050/00795/2017 directing that the name "Shri R. N. Sah" be read in place of "Shri Mukherjee". Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the applicant on Mukherjee".
this count.A count.A true photo copy of corrigendum letter dated 01.01.2018 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R R-1.
11. It was further stated that as per extant Railway Rules, confidential and supervisory supervisory staff may be required to perform night duty only under specific orders of the competent authority. Payment of Night Duty Allowance (NDA) is permissible strictly for the actual night Patna Bench duty performed between 22:00 hours and 06:00 hours, subject to proper roper approval and maintenance of records. In the present case, POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed KUMARI KUMARI the applicant, while working as Chief Train Ticket Inspector, Chhapra, neither obtained prior approval/sanction of the competent authority nor maintained any authentic record of actual night dduty uty performed during the period from November 2013 to August 2015. Despite this, the applicant regularly claimed and received NDA for the said period, which is in clear violation of Rule 3.1 (i), (ii) and
(iii) of the Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.
1966.A true photo copy of extract of Night Duty Allowances Rule is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R R-2.
12. It was further stated that an amount of Rs. 64,744/ 64,744/- was thus illegally drawn by the applicant towards NDA. Consequently, SF SF--
11 for minor penalty under er Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 dated 19.05.2017 was duly served. After considering the reply submitted by the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority 7 O.A. No. 050/00795/2017 found the same unsatisfactory and rightly passed the recovery order dated 26.07.2017 for recovery of Rs. 64,744/ 64,744/- from the salary of the applicant.Hence, it is most respectfully prayed that the interim applicant.Hence, relief sought by the applicant be rejected and the Original Application, being devoid of merit, does not warrant any interference by this Hon'ble Hon'ble Tribunal.
13. Ld. d. Counsel for the applicant had filed the rejoinder in which it was stated that the respondents have themselves admitted that Patna Bench supervisory staff is entitled to night duty allowance when night duty is performed between 22:00 hrs to 06:00 hrs under orders of POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed KUMARI KUMARI the competent authority with proper records. In the present case, the applicant performed night duty from November 2013 to August 2015 strictly under under approved orders of the competent authority. The claims were duly scrutinized and passed by the Senior DCM and Associate Finance Branch and paid as admissible under rules. Railway Board's order dated 09.03.1973 (Para 4(a)(ii)) clearly entitles Class-III Class supervisory staff to night duty allowance. Therefore, the payment made was legal and correct. The subsequent recovery of Rs. 64,744/-
64,744/ and issuance of SF SF-11 11 dated 19.05.2017, at the instance of Vigilance, are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the rules.
14. This Tribunal has considered the matter in its entirety and perused the documents annexed herewith the Original 8 O.A. No. 050/00795/2017 Application. The judgments relied upon by the applicant in his OA are also taken into consideration.
15. After hearing the learned counsel for the respondents and upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents, and arguments placed on record, as well as a thorough examination of the issues that arose in the Original Application, we have arrived at the following conclusion:
i. The charge memorandum randum has been served to the applicant for Patna Bench minor penalty. This is evident from Annexure A A-1 1 that there is a proposal to proceed against the applicant under rule 11 of POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed KUMARI KUMARI Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules that pertains to minor penalty. Hence, as pper rule 9 of the aforesaid rule that relatess to procedures for imposing minor penalties has to be followed. We find that the minor penalty has been inflicted on the applicant after following the procedure. His defence has been considered against the charge. A departmental inquiry for minor penalty need not be carried out strictly in accordance with the rules applicable to imposition of major penalty or judicial proceedings but the principle of natural justice ce has to be followed. Therefore, there iss no violation of the procedure or the principle of natural justice.
ii. The applicant's plea that supervisory officers are also entitled for the night duty allowance is not the core issue. In the 9 O.A. No. 050/00795/2017 Charge memo itself it is mentioned that it has been found in the enquiry conducted in this matter that the applicant has neither obtained any order for the night duty from the competent authority nor preserved any record or register to substantiate his claim of performing such duty. iii. He has claimed the night duty allowance even without such record and therefore, after due consideration of defence statement a punishment of censure as well as recovery of Patna Bench illegally drawn amount has been imposed on him. Itt is established that in case cases off fraudulent claim of POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed KUMARI KUMARI TA/DA/OT/allowances allowances suitably deterrent punishment should be imposed as these come within the category of dishonest practices. This principle is dealt with in RBE 105/1989. There is a Government of India decision that censure and recovery covery of fraudulent claim amount can be passed in one order.
iv. None of the citations used by the applicant in his OA can render him any help as these are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. Here the withdrawal drawal of night duty allowance without obtain obtaining the he order of the competent authority and without any record clearly proves that this is a fraudulent withdrawal drawal on the part of the applicant putting the onus on him. Hence, it has been proved that this illegal 10 O.A. No. 050/00795/2017 withdrawal is totally attributable butable to the misconduct of the applicant.
v. In B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 :
1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reviewed some of the earlier judgments and held:
"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal, the appellate Patna Bench authority, being fact-finding finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain POOJA Digitally by POOJA signed KUMARI KUMARI discipline. They are invested with the discretion to imp impose ose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment nishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
vi. Inn view of the observations made by us in the preceding paragraphs and settled law, there is no reason for us to 11 O.A. No. 050/00795/2017 interfere with the order passed by the respondent officials officials.Wee find this OA to be completely devoid of merit merit. Accordingly, this OA is dismissed. No order as to costs costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari)
Member (A) Member (J)
pk/-
Patna
Bench
POOJA Digitally
by POOJA
signed
KUMARI KUMARI