The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, stated that an officer cannot be held liable for the recovery of an excess amount if they were not at fault. The Division Bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that if an officer was granted a training allowance while not serving as an Instructor, recovering the amount later is unjustified. The Court directed that any amount deducted from the Petitioner be refunded within eight weeks.

Case Background

The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Commandant in the Border Security Force (BSF) on November 15, 1997. On April 1, 2015, he was posted at the Signal Training School (STS), Bengaluru. Subsequently, on May 1, 2015, he was assigned the duties of an Instructor. He was later promoted to Second-In-Command on October 21, 2016, but remained at STS.

Read also: Supreme Court Directs Inquiry Into Indraprastha Apollo Hospital's Free Treatment For Poor Patients

On July 27, 2017, an order was passed releasing him from his Instructor duties and transferring him to the Data Centre with an additional charge of supervising ORs Mess I & II. The order specified that his training allowance would be discontinued after being relieved from Instructor duties. However, on September 29, 2017, another order sanctioned a 15% training allowance, considering him a Faculty Member at STS.

Fearing a recovery issue in the future, the Petitioner addressed a communication on December 19, 2017, to the Inspector General, STS, requesting an official assignment of Instructor duties since he was still receiving the training allowance. On June 27, 2018, his training allowance was reinstated. However, an Audit Report dated December 26, 2018, pointed out that he had not served as an Instructor between July 28, 2017, and March 2018, making him ineligible for the allowance.

Following the Audit Report, the Petitioner’s representation against the findings was rejected on January 3, 2020, and an order was issued to recover the excess amount paid during the period of August 2017 to March 2018. Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court.

Read also: Power to Issue Interim Orders Under Section 9 of the A&C Act is Not Limited to Orders Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2: Delhi HC

The Petitioner’s counsel argued that:

• The Petitioner was an empanelled Instructor at STS and, per the relevant circular, remained eligible for the training allowance for seven years or until his tenure at the institute ended.
• His promotion from Deputy Commandant to Second-In-Command did not disqualify him from receiving the allowance.
• The Respondents failed to assign him any duties despite his written request, making it unfair to deny him the training allowance.

The Respondents countered the Petitioner’s claims by stating:

• The Petitioner was removed from Instructor duties upon his promotion to Second-In-Command and assigned an administrative role.
• His continued receipt of the training allowance was flagged in the Audit Report, leading to its discontinuation and the initiation of recovery.
• The Petitioner himself acknowledged the potential recovery issue and had requested Instructor duties to avoid such an action.

The Delhi High Court examined the applicable circular, which confirmed that empanelled Instructors were entitled to training allowances for seven years. However, in this case:

• The Petitioner was officially relieved from Instructor duties, and an order explicitly stated that his training allowance would be discontinued.
• A subsequent order on September 29, 2017, reinstated his training allowance, but the Audit Report later identified the discrepancy.
• The excess payment was made due to administrative decisions rather than any misrepresentation or wrongdoing by the Petitioner.

Read also: Delhi High Court Halts Release of Tamil Film 'Veera Deera Sooran' for Four Weeks Over Assignment Agreement Dispute

"While the Petitioner was assigned an administrative role and relieved of Instructor duties, he was not entitled to draw the Training Allowance beyond that point. However, since the excess amount was paid due to administrative decisions, recovery cannot be allowed." – Delhi High Court

The Court emphasized that no statutory violation, malice, or arbitrariness was found in the administrative decision. Additionally, the circular dated January 30, 2018, did not grant tenure security for officers promoted from Deputy Commandant to Second-In-Command. Therefore, the Petitioner was not eligible for the training allowance post-relief.

However, considering that the excess payment was made without fault on the Petitioner’s part, the Court ruled that the recovery of the excess amount was impermissible.

The Court concluded:

• The Petitioner was not entitled to the Training Allowance after being relieved from Instructor duties.
• The excess amount paid between August 2017 and March 2018 could not be recovered from him since he was not at fault.
• The Respondents were directed to refund any recovered amount within eight weeks.

This judgment reinforces the principle that employees should not be penalized for administrative lapses when they have acted in good faith. The ruling serves as a significant precedent for similar cases involving erroneous payments due to administrative decisions.

Case Title: RAHUL SINGH versus BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Praveen Chandra, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Adv.