Recovery Of Excess Amount Can't Be Permitted If Officer Is Not At Fault: Delhi High Court
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that if an Officer was granted training allowance for the period he was not working as an Instructor, recovery for an excess amount at a later stage could not be permitted as it was undeniably not his fault. The Bench held that any amount recovered from the Petitioner should be refunded...
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that if an Officer was granted training allowance for the period he was not working as an Instructor, recovery for an excess amount at a later stage could not be permitted as it was undeniably not his fault. The Bench held that any amount recovered from the Petitioner should be refunded to him within a period of eight weeks.
Background
The Petitioner was recruited to the post of Assistant Commandant on 15.11.1997 in the Border Security Force. On 01.04.2015, he was posted to the Signal
Training School, Bengaluru and later on 01.05.2015, the duties of Instructor were assigned to him. Subsequently, on 21.10.2016, he underwent a promotion to the rank of Second-In-Command but was still posted at the Signal Training School, Bengaluru. Releasing him from the post of the Instructor by an Order dated 27.07.2017, the Respondents posted him at the Data Centre and he was assigned an additional charge of supervising the functioning of ORs Mess I & II. As per the Order, the training allowance drawn by the Petitioner was to be discontinued after being released from the charges of the OC(Training). Another order was passed on 29.09.2017 by which training allowance at 15% was sanctioned to the Petitioner for being posted at the STS as a Faculty Member. The Petitioner on 19.12.2017 stated through a communication to the Inspector General, STS that in order to avoid recovery at a later stage, the duties of an Instructor must also be assigned to him since he was paid the training allowance even after removal from the role of an Instructor. His training allowance was restored on 27.06.2018. Later, on 26.12.2018, as per an Audit Report, it was noted that the Petitioner had not performed the duties of an Instructor between 28.07.2017 to March 2018 and therefore he was not entitled for the training allowance. The Petitioner made a representation challenging the Audit Report which was rejected on 03.01.2020 stating that since the Petitioner had been promoted to the Post of Second-In-Command which was an administrative post, he could not claim training allowance. The Order further stated that the Petitioner was paid an excess amount for the period between August, 2017 to March, 2018 which was to be recovered from him.
Aggrieved by the order, the Petitioner approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition.
Submissions of the Petitioner
The Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner was entitled to draw the training allowance as he was empanelled as an Instructor with the STS and as per a Circular, it was made clear that the empanelment was to remain effective for 7 years or till the completion of the training institute's tenure. It was stated that the Petitioner could continue drawing the training allowance being an empanelled Instructor even if he was promoted from the post of Deputy Commandant to the post of 2-I/C. It was further submitted that the Respondents had not assigned any duties to the Petitioner during this time even though he had specifically asked for it, therefore, he could not be denied training allowance.
Submissions of the Respondents
The Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner was removed from the duties of the Instructor while he was promoted to the rank of 2-I/C and was assigned an administrative role. Since his role as an Instructor had ended and he was still getting the training allowance, the same was highlighted in the Audit Report. The Petitioner's training allowance was accordingly stopped and recovery was sought to be made from him, the Counsel submitted. Moreover, referring to the communication between the Petitioner and the Inspector General, the Counsel contended that the Petitioner himself had requested to be assigned the duties of the Instructor so that recovery was not sought from him later.
Findings of the Court
The Court referred to the Circular as per which an empanelled Instructor was entitled to the grant of training allowance and the empanelment was to remain effective for seven years. However, the Petitioner was removed from the duties of the Instructor and it was clearly stated that his training allowance would be discontinued. Later an order was passed on 29.09.2017 restoring training allowance for the Petitioner. The anomaly was highlighted in the Audit Report and the Petitioner's training allowance was discontinued. Moreover, the excess amount granted to the him while he had already been removed from the role of the Instructor was sought to be recovered from him.
The Court held that while the Petitioner was assigned an administrative role relieving him from the duties of an Instructor, he was not entitled to draw the Training Allowance after his removal as an Instructor. It was observed that the Court could not interfere in the same as posting the Petitioner in an administrative role was solely an administrative decision made by the respondents and there was no malice or statutory violation or arbitrariness noticed in the the same.
Moreover, the Court held that in the Circular dated 30.01.2018, the security of a tenure was not granted for the personnel promoted from the post of Deputy commandant to 2-I/C. Observing so, the Bench held that the Petitioner was not entitled to draw Training Allowance.
However, the Court also noted that since the Petitioner was not at fault for being paid between August, 2017 to March, 2018 by the Respondents, the recovery of the excess amount could not be permitted. Additionally, it was emphasised that the Petitioner had through communication dated 19.12.2017 to the Commandant also pointed out the issue.
Making these observations, the Court held that even though the petitioner
was not entitled to the Training Allowance since he had been relieved
from the duties of an Instructor at the STS, any excess
amount as Training Allowance paid to him could not be recovered from him at a later stage as it was not his fault. Furthermore, the Respondents were directed to refund any amount that was paid to the petitioner as the excess amount.
Case Title: RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 376
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Praveen Chandra, Adv.
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Adv.
