Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Bhagaban Naik vs Central Poultry Development ... on 11 July, 2025
1 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022
Reserved on 03.07.2025 Pronounced on 11.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
O.A.No. 264 of 2022 (Bhagaban Naik)
Bhagaban Naik, aged about 53 years, S/o-
Ramachandra Naik, at present working as Poultry
Attendant, Central Poultry Development Organisation
(Eastern Region), At present residing AT: Quarter No.
Type 1/15, P.O: Nayapalli, P.S: Nayapalli. Dist -
Khorda.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its Commissioner,
Ministry of Fisheries Animal Husbandry and Dairying,
Room No. 334, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-
110001.
2. Joint Secretary, Central Poultry Development
Organisation (Eastern Region), Bhubaneswar,
Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda, PIN-751012.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.B.Jena, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. B.R.Mohapatra, Counsel
O.A.No. 265 of 2022 (Sontosh Kumar Das)
Sontosh Kumar Das, aged about 55 years, S/o-
Late Loknath Das, at present working as Poultry
Attendant, Central Poultry Development
Organisation (Eastern Region), At present
KEDARNATH MOHANTY
2025.07.11 10:31:37
+05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022
residing AT: Quarter No. Type 2/13, P.O:
Nayapalli, P.S: Nayapalli. Dist - Khorda.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its
Commissioner, Ministry of Fisheries Animal
Husbandry and Dairying, Room No. 334, Krishi
Bhawan, New Delhi, PIN-110001.
2. Joint Secretary, Central Poultry Development
Organisation (Eastern Region), Bhubaneswar,
Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda, PIN-
751012.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S.B.Jena, Counsel
For the respondents : Ms. R.L.Biswal, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicants and the respondents appearing in each of the cases separately. For the sake of brevity, the facts of OA No. 264 of 2022, in detail, are delineated hereunder:
O.A.No. 264 of 2022 (Bhagaban Naik)
2. The applicant is working as Poultry Attendant, Central Poultry Development Organization (Eastern Region), BBSR. KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 In the Office Order dated 25.05.2022, on the basis of the recommendation of the Internal Audit, the applicant was asked to pay the excess travelling allowance paid to him within seven days. Since, he did not refund the said excess amount, vide O.O. dated 09.06.2022 he was asked to deposit the said amount of Rs. 40,008/- within seven days. Hence, impugning and challenging the Office Orders dated 25.05.2022 and 09.06.2022, he has filed this OA seeking to quash the said orders and to direct the respondents to go on paying the Travelling Allowance in same terms and conditions as was being given to him earlier on the grounds as under:
(i) Applicant joined on 09.11.1993 as Poultry Attendant, Central Poultry Development Organization (Eastern Region), BBSR and he was allotted residential Govt. quarters at Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Due to partial KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 relocation of CPDO (ER) BBSR, the entire livestock farm divided into two parts. The existing farm at Nayapalli was named as Farm Unit-I and the farm relocated at Talagada, Mundali, Cuttack as Farm Unit-II and started functioning w.e.f. 07.11.2018.
Hence, vide O.O. dated 14.11.2018, the duty arrangement of the applicant and others were made for smooth management of both the livestock farms;
(ii) The Govt. of India, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandary and Dairying, Dept. Of Animal Husbandary and Dairying, New Delhi vide letter dated 26.08.2019 intimated that the deputed employees may be provided to and fro office transportation to attend the duties at the relocated farm KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 and if official transport is not regularly then the actual expenditure incurred by local/public transport may be reimbursed to enable them to attend the duties at the relocated farm;
(iii) The CPDO (ER), BBSR, issued O.O. dated 30.08.2019 stating therein that to allow to and fro transportation charges to the employees detailed to attend the duties at relocated Farm Unit-II as per actual expenditure on local/public transport, i.e. Rs. 70 per day. Further, it was instructed to that the employees deputed to Farm Unit-II has to submit their claims on monthly basis for reimbursement of the amount w.e.f. August, 2019;
KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022
(iv) The Director (I/c) CPDO, BBSR, has sought certain clarification on payment of TA from PAO, Nagpur vide letter dated 01.10.2020, on which, the Sr. AO vide letter dated 26.11.2020 clarified how much TA shall be paid to an employee, if the employee performs to and fro journey from CPDO, BBSR to Talagada, Mundali Farm by his own car/taxi and by his own scooter/auto- rickshaw/foot with further clarification that as far as possible transportation m ay be provided to the officials to attend the duty at Mundali to avoid any excess expenditure under the object head DTE;
(v) In the light of the clarification dated 26.11.2020, the CPDO, BBSR issued O.O. for payment of the TA to the deputed KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 employees in accordance with the clarification instead of the earlier order dated 30.08.2019;
(vi) While the matter stood thus, based on the internal audit recommendation, the impugned O.Os. were issued for recovery of Rs. 40,008/- from the applicant in the name of excess payment made to him towards TA;
(vii)Recovery is provided as one of the punishments under Rule 11 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and only can be imposed at the culmination of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. In the instant case, the recovery is ordered KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 without following the recourse under the rules;
(viii) The reimbursement of TA was granted as per the directive of the competent authority and PAO and, thus, the Audit has no authority, competency or jurisdiction to make any objection on the same. Thus, asking the applicant to refund the amount solely based on the recommendation of the Audit is bad in law;
(ix) Despite availability of transportation with the respondent No.2, official transportation was not provided to attend the duty at relocated Farm with oblique motive;
(x) The distance between Nayapalli to Mundali KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 is 33 Kms and are located in two different districts having no direct transportation;
(xi) The impugned orders were issued without giving any opportunity to the applicant to have his say;
(xii) Recovery amount based on Audit objection is not sustainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa in the case of Akshay Kumar Dwivedy Vs State of Odisha & others in W.P.C(OAC) No.3936 of 2013 dated 23.03.2022;
3. Respondents filed their counter objecting and contesting the case of the applicant inter alia stating as under:
KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022
(a) The applicant is working as Poultry Attendant under the respondents and not as Farm Manager as stated by him in the OA;
(b) He was drawing TA @ Rs. 1800/- + DA as per his Pay Level-3 to attend his normal duty as per the provision embodied in Swamy's FR and SR Part II. Thus, he was not entitled to travelling allowance to perform day-to-day normal duty;
(c) The Asst. Director, who was acting as DDO temporarily, has no power to issue the O.O. dated 05.12.2020, for which show cause notice has been issued to her attracting Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965;
KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022
(d) Following the directive of the Ministry dated 26.08.2019, O.O. dated 30.08.2019 was issued by the CPDO, BBSR for allowing bus and train fare @ Rs. 70/- towards TA.
Therefore, issuance of O.O. dated 05.12.2020 was not correct. Therefore, payment made based on the O.O. dated 05.12.2020 was rightly objected to by the Audit, which was sought to be recovered from the applicant and others;
(e) The TA payment was made to the applicant on the basis of his undertaking dated 20.02.2021 that in case of excess payment towards TA, the same will be refunded/recovered from his salary. Since, it was found by the Audit that the payment made to the applicant towards TA was not KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 in accordance with rules, the same was rightly sought to be recovered.
4. Admittedly, the amount sought to be recovered was directed based on the Audit objection dated 18.05.2022 and to find out the extent of the objection of the Audit, we would like to extract the objection of the Audit as under:
"Criteria-
Transport allowance is an allowance given to meet commuting expenses between place of residence and office/place of posting as per entitlement (FRSR-II). No officer/official can claim any additional amount other than transport allowance for regular duty.
However, Administration Division-VI, Department of AHD, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying issued a letter no. Q-14039/7/2017-Admin-6 dated 26/08/2019 regarding entitlement of TA/DA to the employees of CPDO, Bhubaneswar who were deputed to partially re-located Talagada farm at Mundali Cuttack vide OO No. CPDO/BBS/6- 17/2018-1160 dated 14.11.2018.
As per above stated order No. Q-14039/7/2017-Admin-6 dated 26/08/2019 DAHD clarified that "the deputed employees may be provided to and fro official transportation to attend the duties at the relocated farm. However, if official transport is not regularly available, then actual expenditure incurred by them on local/public transport may be reimbursed".
Accordingly an Office Order No. CPDO/BBS-6-17/2019-642 dated 30/08/2019 was issued by Director, CPDO, Bhubaneswar and it was decided to allow to and fro transportation charges to attend the duties at the relocated Talagada farm at Mundali Cuttack as per actual expenditure KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 on local/public transport ie. @ Rs. 70/- per day. The employees deputed to farm unit-II at Talagada farm at Mundali Cuttack were directed to submit their claims on monthly basis for reimbursement w.e.f. August 2019. Conditions:
During the course of audit, it was noticed that vide order no. CPDO/BBS/6-17/2018-1160 dated 14.11.2018 farm of CPDO(ER) was partially relocated to new farm at Talagada, Mundali, Cuttack and some staff was also posted there. Since the staff was residing/in-house at Bhubaneswar farm, it was decided by Director, CPDO in consultation with Administration Division-VI, Deptt. of AHD, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying that "the deputed employees may be provided to and fro official transportation to attend the duties at the relocated farm. However, if official transport is not regularly available, then actual expenditure incurred by them on local/public transport may be reimbursed i.e. Rs.70/- per day".
But on the contrary, Smt. Indira Nayak, Farın Manager (who was temporarily delegated the powers of Head of Office) intentionally issued an irregular order dated 17.12.2020 stating that "the earlier claim already settled @ Rs. 70/- is hereby revised and the differential amount to be paid at the earliest, In this context, the issue of TA in favour of deputed staffs is hereby settled. This order supersedes all the previous orders/clarifications of actual TA and DA of the deputed staff and they are hereby directed to submitted their bills accordingly"
Later on, the deputed staff including Smt. Indira Nayak, Farm Manager of Talagada, Mundali Cuttak claimed the excess amount and the same was paid to following officials/officers in violation of Travelling Rules, Ministry's above stated directions and orders of then Director CPDO, Bhubaneswar issued vide Office Order No. CPDO/BBS-6-17/2019-642 dated 30/08/2019 resulting in excess payment of Rs. 2,85,568/-. The details of the same is as under:-
xxx xxx xxx
Causes-
Overriding the delegated powers. Non observance of TA rules, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Deptt. of AHD, Administration Division-VI Letter No. Q-
KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 14039/7/2017-Admin-6 dated 26/08/2019 and CPDO, Bhubaneswar Office Order No CPDO/BBS-6-17/2019-6-42 dt. 30/08/2019.
Effect and consequences-
Extra burden on Govt. exchequer for deliberately not following TA rules, superseding the directions issued through Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Deptt. of AHD, Administration Division-VI Letter No. Q-14039/7/2017-Admin-6 dated 26/08/2019 and CPDO, Bhubaneswar Office Order No. CPDO/BBS-6- 17/2019-642 dt 30/08/2019.
Recommendations-
1. An amount of Rs. 2,85,568/- may be recovered from concerned officers/officials
2. The matter may be brought into the knowledge of higher authorities for disciplinary action and
3. Similar cases may be reviewed by the CPDO/Department under intimation to IAW (H.Q.)"
5. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, recovery is provided as one of the punishments under Rule 11 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and only can be imposed at the culmination of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. In the instant case, the recovery is ordered without following the recourse under the rules. We are of the considered view that Ld counsel for the applicant is under misconception that for the recovery of the present KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 15 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 nature it can only be effected after instituting disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 because recovery is provided under the rules, which can be imposed on culmination of disciplinary proceedings taken up against an employee for his misconduct/misdeed/misdemenour/omission and commission in discharging the official duties and not for any excess payment made. Hence, this stand of the applicant is not acceptable.
6. Next stand of the applicant is that recovery based on Audit objection is not sustainable in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa in the case of Akshay Kumar Dwivedy Vs State of Odisha & others in W.P.C(OAC) No.3936 of 2013 dated 23.03.2022. We have gone through t he said decision wherein there was no such straightjacket formula is fixed or ex facie direction is given that no recovery or no action can be taken based on Audit KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 16 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 objection. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the said case has observed that "in course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Government in Finance Department issued an Office Memorandum bearing No.8761/F dated 4th March, 2003 regarding recovery of dues arising out of audit objection. A reading of the said Memorandum reveals that referring to an earlier O.M. No.31740/F dated 22.8.1991 of the Government in Finance Department, it has been reiterated that the finding in an audit report /Para does not impose any liability on the Government servant concerned unless the same is established in a departmental proceeding initiated against him under the 1962 Rules. In the Office Memorandum dated 4th March, 2003, it has been further held that where the loss of Government money either by misappropriation or otherwise as pointed out by audit is of a nature where no direct responsibility can be fixed without resorting to a fact KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 17 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 finding enquiry, in such cases departmental proceedings should be instituted under the 1962 Rules/1992 Rules on the basis of the audit para/report". In view of the above, the above decision is held not applicable to the case in hand.
7. The next limb of submission of the respondents is that following the directive of the Ministry dated 26.08.2019, O.O. dated 30.08.2019 was issued by the CPDO, BBSR for allowing bus and train fare @ Rs. 70/- towards TA. Dr. (Smt.) Nayak, who was acting as DDO temporarily, had no power to issue the O.O. dated 05.12.2020. Therefore, payment made towards TA based on the O.O. dt. 05.12.2020 was rightly asked the applicant to refund based on the Audit objection. In this connection, we have examined the Audit objection noted above, vis a vis the O.O. dated 05.12.2020. From the report of the Audit, it is abundantly clear that the payment of Rs.70/- for the journey undertaken by the applicant in the OA has not been objected to but what has KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 18 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 been objected to by the Audit is the payment made based on the O.O. dated 17.12.2020 issued by Dr. (Smt.) Indira Nayak by stating that while she was working as Farm Manager was temporarily delegated the powers of Head of Office, who intentionally issued an irregular order dated 17.12.2020 stating that "the earlier claim already settled @ Rs. 70/- is hereby revised and the differential amount to be paid at the earliest, In this context, the issue of TA in favour of deputed staffs is hereby settled. This order supersedes all the previous orders/clarifications of actual TA and DA of the deputed staff and they are hereby directed to submitted their bills accordingly". None of the parties have produced any such order stated to have been issued by Dr. (Smt.) Indira Nayak on "17.12.2020". Rather, we find that based on the clarification issued by the Sr. Accounts Officer, Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Marketing & Inspection, Nagpur, dated 26.11.2020, Dr. (Smt.) Nayak KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 19 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 issued O.O. on "05.12.2020" stating what has been stated by the Audit, reflected above. Further, it is established that the Audit made the objection without noticing the letter issued by the Pay and Accounts Office in letter dated 26.11.2020. Thus, from the above, it is clear that the Audit raised the objection in a most casual, routine and cavalier manner without taking into consideration the entirety of the matter. The respondents department also did not produce any document clarifying the above aspect of the matter either before the Audit party or while complying with the Audit report seeking dropping of the said objection although, it is the prime duty, at the first instance, before asking the applicant to refund the amount. On going through the letter of the PAO, Nagpur dated 26.11.2020 and the Office Order issued by Dr. (Smt.) Indira Nayak, it is made clear that there was no such direction in the letter of the PAO that it should be made applicable w.e.f. 14.11.2018 what has been written KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 20 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 in the O.O. dated 05.12.2020 issued by her. Nothing has been stated in the counter relating to the letter of the PAO dated 26.11.2020 nor it is the case of the respondents that the said letter of the PAO has no application or the same has been rescinded to. However, we do not like to comment on the competency of Dr. (Smt.) Nayak in issuing the O.O. dated 05.12.2020 as stated by the respondents since the said O.O. is not under challenge in this OA.
8. During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned orders have been issued without giving opportunity of being heard to the Applicant and that the applicant is a class III employee and recovery would put him in financial difficulty/hardship and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 21 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 after informing the applicant of the case, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the applicant of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. As record shows no such steps were taken before the impugned orders were issued. Also we find some force on this submission in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors Vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer), AIR 2015 SC 696, wherein to mitigate the financial hardship, the Hon'ble Apex Court while postulating some of the instances/situations have held that recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) is impermissible in law. In view of the law, the stand of the respondents that the applicant is estopped to raise any objection on the basis of the undertaking furnished by him, in our considered view, is of no consequence. KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 22 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022
9. In view of the above, the orders dated 25.05.2022 and 09.06.2022, in respect to the applicant requiring him to refund Rs. 40,008/- are hereby quashed. Insofar as the second prayer of the applicant that the direction be issued to the respondents to go on paying TA claim as was being paid to him earlier is concerned, it is directed that the applicant shall be entitled to the TA claim as per rules and the instruction issued by the competent authority. O.A.No. 265 of 2022 (Sontosh Kumar Das)
10. In this case, the applicant who was also working as Poultry Attendant having faced the similar situation like of the Sri Bhagaban Naik (applicant OA 264/2022), filed the OA seeking to quash the orders dated 25.05.2022 and 09.06.2022, in which he required to refund Rs. 27,528/- paid to him towards excess TA claim. In the pleadings, OA, Counter, Rejoinder etc. so also Ld. Counsel for both sides have raised similar points as was canvassed in OA KEDARNATH MOHANTY 2025.07.11 10:31:37 +05'30' 23 O.A.No. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 264/2022, which were exhaustively dealt into as above. Therefore, we find that the present case being one and the same, the impugned orders dated 25.05.2022 and 09.06.2022, in respect to the applicant requiring him to refund Rs. 27,528/- are hereby quashed. Insofar as the second prayer of the applicant that the direction be issued to the respondents to go on paying TA claim as was being paid to him earlier is concerned, it is directed that the applicant shall be entitled to the TA claim as per rules and the instruction issued by the competent authority.
11. In the result, both the O.A.Nos. 260/00264 & 265 of 2022 are hereby allowed to the extent stated above.. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
KNM
KEDARNATH MOHANTY
2025.07.11 10:31:37
+05'30'