IndiaversusVinay Kumar Srivastava

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10050 of 2025
                 ======================================================
           1.     The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi-
                 110001.
           2.    The Senior DCM, East Central Railway, Sonepur-841101.
           3.    The Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), East Central Railway,
                 Sonepur- 841101.

                                                                           ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus

                 Vinay Kumar Srivastava Son of Late Shivnath Prasad Srivastava, Resident of
                 Village Ufraulia, P.S. Riga, District Sitamarhi- 843327, posted as Chief
                 Commercial Clerk, Naugachhia Railway Station, Mansi Railway Platform,
                 District - Khagaria.

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :

                 For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, Sr. CGSC
                                               Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s   :

                 ======================================================
                   CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
                                               and
                          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

                      (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

7   27-01-2026                   The present writ petition has been filed assailing the

                   order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Central

                   Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter

                   referred to as the ‘Ld. CAT’) in OA/050/00553/2017, whereby

                   and whereunder the original application filed by the respondent

                   herein has been allowed, the orders dated 21.03.2016 and

                   09.09.2016 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager
Patna High Court CWJC No.10050 of 2025(7) dt.27-01-2026
                                           2/4




          (Commercial), Sonepur have been quashed and the petitioners

          have been directed to refund the recovered amount to the

          respondent within a period of three months.

                      2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners

          has submitted that the Ld. CAT, in paragraph No.8 of the

          impugned order dated 12.12.2024 has recorded the fact that the

          petitioners herein have not quoted in the written statement filed

          before the Ld. CAT any Rule which empowers the petitioners to

          recover demurrage charges and wharfage charges, which

          admittedly have not been recovered by the petitioners herein

          from the concerned business establishment which was supposed

          to pay the same.

                      3. Nonetheless, it is submitted by the learned counsel

          for the petitioners that the provision for making recovery from

          the concerned employee, the amount of pecuniary loss caused

          by him to the government or railway administration by

          negligence or breach of orders is contained in Rule 6 (iii) of the

          Railway      Servants      (Discipline      & Appeal)   Rules,   1968

          (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1968’) and the procedure

          for the purposes of imposing minor penalties is prescribed under

          Rule 11 of the Rules, 1968, which have been followed by the

          petitioners while passing the impugned orders dated 21.03.2016
Patna High Court CWJC No.10050 of 2025(7) dt.27-01-2026
                                           3/4




          and 09.09.2016. Thus, it is submitted that that Ld. CAT is not

          right in holding that there is no Rule under which recovery of

          the due demurrage charges and wharfage charges can only be

          made from the defaulting business establishment and not from

          the concerned employee.

                      4. At this juncture, we have put a question to the

          learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as to whether the

          said Rules, 1968 were brought to the notice of the Ld. CAT, to

          which the answer is in the negative.

                      5. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the

          petitioners seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioners to approach

          the Ld. CAT by filing appropriate review petition and placing

          the aforesaid Rules, 1968 before it so that proper adjudication of

          the case in hand can be done by the Ld. CAT. Therefore, the

          learned counsel for the petitioners seeks not to press the present

          petition, however seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioners to

          file review petition before the Ld. CAT for review of the

          aforesaid order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CAT.

          Liberty, so sought, is granted.

                      6. It is made clear that we have not expressed any

          opinion on the merits of the case and it would be at the

          discretion of the Ld. CAT to pass appropriate orders upon the
          Patna High Court CWJC No.10050 of 2025(7) dt.27-01-2026
                                                     4/4




                    review to be filed by the petitioners, in accordance with law.

                                7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands

                    disposed of on the aforesaid terms.



                                                            (Mohit Kumar Shah, J)


                                                           (Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
GAURAV S./-
U