Allahabad High Court
SMT GEETA CHAURASIAversusUNION OF INDIA AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the respondents failed to follow the statutory procedure under Rule 11 for imposing a minor penalty, making the salary deductions unsustainable and the orders set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Chief Matron of the Indian Railway Cancer Institution, challenged salary deductions ordered on 15 October 2015 and 6 November 2015, alleging that no charge sheet or disciplinary inquiry was conducted. She argued that the deductions, framed as a minor penalty under Rule 6(iii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, required compliance with the procedural safeguards of Rule 11, including a proper notice in the prescribed Form No.11. The respondents contended that the recovery was a routine financial adjustment, not a punishment, and that the notice issued on 10 January 2015 and the subsequent communication on 23 January 2015 satisfied Rule 11 requirements. The High Court held that the notices did not meet the statutory form and content mandated by Rule 11, rendering the imposition of the minor penalty procedurally invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dismissing the original application and directed the respondents to refund the deducted amounts with interest. The writ petition was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether salary deductions as a minor penalty under Rule 6(iii) require compliance with the procedural requirements of Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
- Whether the notices issued by the respondents satisfied the statutory form and content prescribed in Form No.11 under Rule 11.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in characterising the recovery as a routine step exempting it from disciplinary procedure.
- Whether the orders dated 15.10.2015 and 06.11.2015 are liable to be set aside for non‑compliance with Rule 11.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the deducted sums with interest.
Subjects
- Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968
- minor penalty
- salary deduction
- procedural fairness
- Rule 11
- natural justice
- refund with interest
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 19802 of 2025
Smt Geeta Chaurasia
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and 6 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manvendra Dixit, Nisha Dixit
Counsel for Respondent(s) : S.P. Singh (A.S.G.I.), Ashish Kumar
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Manvendra Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated
28.08.2025 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench, Allahabad has dismissed the Original Application (‘OA’)
No.1579 of 2015 filed by the petitioner and denied reliefs claimed
therein. The OA was filed laying challenge to orders dated 15.10.2015
and 06.11.2015 passed by the respondents, consequence whereof was in
terms of recovery/deduction of sums from the salary of the petitioner.
2
WRIA No. - 19802 of 2025
Further relief was claimed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to
reimburse her the deducted amount from her salary.
3. The petitioner, who was working as Chief Matron in the Indian
Railway Cancer Institution and Research Centre, Varanasi (‘the
Institute)’, retired on 30.06.2016. One year prior thereto, action was
initiated against her on allegation of shortage of bed sheets in the
Institute and an order was passed on 15.10.2015 directing deduction of
Rs.1,15,455/- in monthly installments from her salary. Subsequently,
another order was passed on 06.11.2015 modifying the previous order
dated 15.10.2015 and a sum of Rs.51,955/-was ordered to be deducted
from her salary.
4. Challenge was laid to the aforesaid orders before the Tribunal on
the ground that the petitioner was neither served with any charge sheet in
the matter nor any formal inquiry was conducted against her and,
therefore, the impugned action and orders being contrary to the
provisions of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968
(‘the Rules, 1968’) and having been passed in violation of principles of
natural justice, were unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
5. The OA was contested by the respondents taking a stand that as
per the guidelines contained in the Railway Board Circular dated
01.09.2015, in case of loss of linen, recovery has to be effected at 75%
of the last purchase rate and, on audit and vigilance checks conducted at
the Institute, loss of 387 bed sheets was found for which the petitioner
was held accountable. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that
certain amount was ordered to be recovered from the salary of the
petitioner in easy installments only after consideration of the
representation filed by her.
6. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that
recovery was not a punishment, rather was a routine step to recover the
Government money under the Railway Board Circular dated 01.09.2015
and since the department had followed the Rules, it was not required to
hold a formal disciplinary inquiry. The Tribunal also referred to the
3
WRIA No. - 19802 of 2025
notice issued to the petitioner and its response submitted by her and
dismissed the OA by observing that revision made in the initial order
dated 15.10.2015 by a subsequent order dated 06.11.2015 was based
upon consideration of response submitted by the petitioner, report of
vigilance team and official guidelines.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions that
neither any charge sheet was served upon the petitioner nor any
disciplinary proceedings or full-fledged inquiry was conducted against
her and, therefore, the recovery is contrary to the Rules, 1968. It is
further contended that respondents were not competent to revise the
initial order dated 15.10.2015 based upon an exercise undertaken by
themselves and, in any case, the response submitted by the petitioner
was not given thoughtful consideration.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents made submissions
that nature of penalty imposed upon petitioner being minor penalty in
terms of Rules 6(iii) of the Rules, 1968, since notice was issued to her
and response was received by the respondents, no regular inquiry was
required to be undertaken. It is further submitted that two orders were
passed on 06.11.2015, one holding the petitioner guilty and the other
being only consequential order directing recovery/adjustment from the
salary, but the first (basic) order dated 06.11.2015 was not challenged
before the Tribunal, challenge to the consequential order was not
sustainable. It is also submitted that the earlier order dated 15.10.2015
was never given effect to and it was only the subsequent modified order
dated 06.11.2015 which was enforced in terms of recovery and,
therefore, the challenge laid to the earlier order was of no consequence.
9. In response to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has
drawn attention of the Court to pay-slip of the petitioner for the month of
October, 2015 indicating deduction of a sum of Rs. 14,432/- from her
salary and submission has been made that the said deduction was based
upon the indications made in the first order dated 15.10.2015 and,
4
WRIA No. - 19802 of 2025
therefore, contrary submissions advanced are against the factual
position.
10. We have considered the submissions advanced and have perused
the material available on record.
11. When the arguments on the first date of hearing, i.e. 07.01.2026,
were advanced by learned counsel for the parties, following order was
passed:-
“1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that action for recovery was taken against the
petitioner without following the procedure prescribed in Railway Servants (Discipline
& Appeal) Rules, 1968 ('Rules, 1968').
2. Counsel for the respondents submits that the nature of penalty imposed is a minor
penalty in terms of Rule 6(iii) of the Rules, 1968 and, therefore, the fact that the notice
was issued and response was received, no regular inquiry was required to be
undertaken. However, we do not find from the record any notice having been issued in
terms of provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1968.
3. Counsel for the respondents prays for time to place on record the material to indicate
compliance of provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1968.
4. Needful may be done before the next date.
5. List the petition on 10.02.2026, as fresh.”
12. Today, when the matter was taken up, Shri Ashish Kumar, learned
counsel for the respondents made submissions that he does not propose
to bring on record any further material as directed under the previous
order, inasmuch as the entire material indicating due compliance of Rule
11 is already on record of the writ petition. Therefore, the Court
proceeded to hear the matter finally.
13. There being no dispute that the penalty imposed upon the
petitioner is a minor penalty covered by Rule 6(iii), which provides for
recovery from the pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused
by employee to the Government or Railway Administration by
negligence or breach of orders. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether
the procedure prescribed for imposing minor penalties, as envisaged
under Rule 11 has been followed by the respondents. For a ready
reference, Rule 11, insofar as the same is relevant in the present case, is
reproduced as under:-
“11. Procedure for imposing minor penalties- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-clause
(iv) of clause (a) of sub-rule (9) of Rule 9 and of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10, no order
5
WRIA No. - 19802 of 2025
imposing on a Railway servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule
6 shall be made except after -
(a) informing the Railway servant in writing of the proposal to take action against
him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is
proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such
representations as he may wish to make against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (6) to (25) of Rule 9,
in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such
inquiry is necessary;
(c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Railway servant under
clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into
consideration;
(d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and
(e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary.
…………...”
14. A perusal of clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 clearly indicates
that no order imposing any of the minor penalties specified in Clauses (i)
to (iv) of Rule 6 shall be made except informing the Railway servant in
writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations
of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and
giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he
may wish to make against the proposal.
15. Since reference of notices/communications dated 10.01.2015 and
23.01.2015 was made on behalf of the respondents terming them to be
due compliance of Rule 11, for a ready reference, first, notice dated
10.01.2015 is reproduced as under:-
“पूर्वो त्तर रेलर्वोे
कार्याालर्या
मुख्र्या मैट्रन
कैंसर संस्थान र्वोाराणसी
दि नांक-10-1-15
सं०-2015/मेड/536/1/लिलनेन
श्रीमती गीता चौरसिसर्याा मुख्र्या मैट्रन
कैंसर संस्थान/र्वोाराणसी
दिर्वोषर्या- र्वोेड शीट (चा र) के सम्बन्ध में।
आपके स्टोर में एक कमेटी द्वारा दि नांक -13-10-14 को आपके लेजर की जांच की गई, जांच में र्वोेड शीट की जांच
करने पर पार्याा गर्याा दिक आपके लेजर में 914 बेड शीट अंदिकत है, सिजसमें से आप द्वारा केर्वोल 201 बेड शीट का ही
लेखा-जोखा प्राप्त हु आ है। बाकी 713 बेड शीट का लेखा, जोखा प्राप्त नहीं हु आ है। कमेटी द्वारा दिकर्याे गर्याे सर्वो< की
प्रतित सलंग्न है।
अतः आप पत्र प्रादिप्त के तीन दि न के अन् र टोटल 914 बेड शीट का लेखा-जोखा अधोहस्ताक्षरी को प्रस्तुत करें,
अन्र्याथा आपके ऊपर प्रशासदिनक कार्यार्वोाही की जार्याेगी।
ह०अ०
सहार्याक नर्सिंसग अतिधकारी
6
WRIA No. - 19802 of 2025
कैंसर संस्थान/र्वोाराणसी
प्रतितलिलदिप-डा0 आरती दि व्र्याा/ र्वो दिर्वोतिध/कैंसर संस्थान र्वोाराणसी सूचनाथ प्रेदिषत ।
ह०अ०
सहार्याक नर्सिंसग अतिधकारी
कैंसर संस्थान/र्वोाराणसी"
16. A perusal of the notice dated 10.01.2015 indicates that the
petitioner was required to produce details/account of 914 bed sheets
within a period of three days, failing which, administrative proceedings
against her was sought to be initiated (अतः आप पत्र प्रादिप्त के तीन दि न के
अन् र टोटल 914 बेड शीट का लेखा-जोखा अधोहस्ताक्षरी को प्रस्तुत करें,
अन्र्याथा आपके ऊपर प्रशासदिनक कार्यार्वोाही की जार्याेगी।). The notice does not
indicate as to what action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner
on account of imputations of alleged misconduct or misbehaviour on her
part, nor does the notice contemplate grant of any reasonable opportunity
of making such representation as the petitioner could wish to make
against the proposed action, if any. Nevertheless, the petitioner
responded to the notice dated 10.01.2015 within time on 13.01.2015,
whereafter the respondents issued following communication dated
23.01.2015:-
"पूर्वो त्तर रेलर्वोे
कार्याालर्या
तिचदिकत्सा दिन ेशक
कैंसर संस्थान/र्वोाराणसी
दि नांक-23.01.2015
सं0-14/मेंड/0170
सेर्वोा में,
श्रीमती गीता चौरसिसर्याा
मुख्र्या मैट्रन/कैं०सं०/र्वोाराणसी
दिर्वोषर्याः- लिलनेन/बेडशीट की कमी के संबंध में।
सं र्भः- आपका आर्वोे न दि नांक-13.01.2015
तिचदिकत्सा दिन ेशक/कैं० सं० द्वारा गदिNत कमेटी द्वारा आपके र्वोाड के बेडशीट की दिगनती करने पर र्याह
पार्याा गर्याा दिक आपके र्वोाड में बेडशीट कम थे सिजसकी प्रतितपूर्तित के लिलए आपको पत्र सं 0-15/मेड/536/1/0042,
दि नांक-13.10.14 एर्वों 12.1.15 को पत्र दि र्याा गर्याा था, सिजसके सं र्भ में आपने अपना पत्र दि नांक -13.1.2015 में
7
WRIA No. - 19802 of 2025
उल्लेख दिकर्याा है दिक अचानक बीमार होने के कारण आप ड्यूटी नहीं कर पार्याी इसलिलए र्वोाड की चाभिर्भर्यााँ अगले
स्टाफ को ेना पड़ा तथा आपके पत्र के अर्वोलोकन से दिनम्नलिललिखत तथ्र्या स्पष्ट होते हैं -
1. जब आप Nीक होकर कार्या पर र्वोापस आर्याीं और पुनः चाज लेने के बा आपने अपना स्टॉक जाँच करके
प्रशासन को लिललिखत रूप से क्र्याों नहीं अर्वोगत करार्याा दिक आपके स्टॉक में बेडशीट की कदिमर्यााँ हैं , सिजससे प्रशासन
द्वारा तत्काल कार्यार्वोाही की जा सकती थी।
2. गं े एर्वों खून तथा उल्टी से सने कपड़े जब आपके अधीनस्थ जो कमचारी नहीं हटाना चाहते हैं , तो आपने उन
कमचारिरर्याों के बारे में लिललिखत भिशकार्यात क्र्याों नहीं की जबदिक अधोहस्ताक्षरी द्वारा कैं०सं० के सर्भी र्वोाड इंचाज को
र्याह दिन <श दि र्याा गर्याा है दिक आपके र्वोाड का अगर कोई कमचारी अपना कार्या करने से मना करता है , तो तुरन्त
आप उसकी लिललिखत भिशकार्यात अधोहस्ताक्षरी से करें।
3. आपने प्रशासन को लिललिखत रूप से र्याह सूचना नहीं ी दिक आप इंचाजभिशप करने के र्याोग्र्या नहीं हैं।
4. आपने अपने पत्र में र्याह उल्लेख दिकर्याा है दिक आप बीमारी के उपरान्त Nीक होकर कार्या ग्रहण करने के बा कोई
लिललिखत सूचना ेने के लार्याक नहीं थीं, जो दिक असत्र्या है , क्र्याोंदिक आपने समर्या-समर्या पर अनार्वोश्र्याक बातों हेतु
पत्राचार र्भी दिकर्याा।
6. र्यादि , आपकी मानसिसक स्थिस्थतित बोलने एर्वों चलने की स्थिस्थतित Nीक नहीं है तब आपको और इलाज की जरूरत
प्रतीत होती है। इस प्रकार की स्थिस्थतित में आप अपना इलाज न कराकर मरीजों के साथ कार्या कैसे कर सकती हैं।
7. आप र्वोाड की मैट्रन इंचाज हैं और र्यादि आपके र्वोाड में कार्यारत तीनों भिशफ्ट के कमचारी अपने चाज का लेन -
ेन नहीं करती हैं , तो र्याह आपकी सिजम्मे ारी बनती है दिक आप अपने अधीनस्थ कमचारिरर्याों से सुचारू एर्वों
प्रशासदिनक तरीके से कार्या लें र्यादि र्याह सम्र्भर्वो नहीं हो पा रहा था , तो आपने इसकी लिललिखत सूचना अपने
अतिधकारिरर्याों को ेना चादिहए था।
आपके पूर्वो के कथनों से र्याह प्रतीत होता है दिक आप अपने प की गरिरमा एर्वों सिजम्मे ारिरर्याों को नहीं
समझती हैं र्याा आप अपनी सिजम्मे ारिरर्याों का दिनर्वोहन नहीं करना चाहती हैं। आपके इस गैर सिजम्मे ाराना तरीके से
दिकए गए कार्याg से कार्या में बाधा उत्पन्न होने के साथ-साथ रेल राजस्र्वो की क्षतित र्भी हु ई है।
अतः आपको र्याह ज्ञात करार्याा जाता है दिक आपके चाज में दि ए गए लिलनेन की कदिमर्याों की प्रतितपूर्तित आपसे करर्वोाने
हेतु प्रशासन को बाध्र्या होना पड़ेगा।
ह०अ०
सहार्याक नर्सिंसग अतिधकारी
कैंसर संस्थान / र्वोाराणसी"
17. A perusal of the communication/letter dated 23.01.2015 indicates
that, having considered the response dated 13.01.2015 submitted by the
petitioner, it was indicated by the respondents that on account of her act
Railway had suffered pecuniary loss and, therefore, she was
informed/made aware (आपको र्याह ज्ञात करार्याा जाता है ) that the
administration would be compelled to recover the damage due to
shortage of linen (दिक आपके चाज में दि ए गए लिलनेन की कदिमर्याों की प्रतितपूर्तित आपसे
करर्वोाने हेतु प्रशासन को बाध्र्या होना पड़ेगा).
18. Since learned counsel for the respondents has attempted to submit
that these two communications dated 10.01.2015 and 23.01.2015 were
sufficient compliance of the statutory requirements of Rule 11(1)(a), the
Court deems it appropriate to quote standard Form No.11 which is meant
for imposition of minor penalties under Rule 11. Specific reference was
made to the said Form on behalf of the petitioner during the course of
arguments and the same is reproduced as under:-
8
WRIA No. - 19802 of 2025
“STANDARD FORM NO.11
Standard Form of Memorandum of Charge for Imposing Minor Penalties
(Rule 11 of RS(D&A) Rules, 1968
No…………………………….
(Name of the Railway Administration)
……………………………………...
(place of issue)………….dated………..
MEMORANDUM
1. Shri……………………………………. (name, designation and office in which
working) is hereby informed that the undersigned proposed to take action against him
under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. A statement
of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which action is proposed to be
taken as mentioned above, is enclosed.
2. Shri ……………………………………..is hereby given an opportunity to make such
representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. The representation, if any,
should be submitted to the undersigned so as to reach within ten days of receipt of this
Memorandum.
3. If Shri……………………... fails to submit his representation within the period
specified in para 2, it will be presumed that he has no representation to make and orders
will be liable to be passed against
Shri……………………………………………………………………....ex-parte.
4. The receipt of this Memorandum should be acknowledged by Shri…………………..
Signature…………..
Designation……………..”
19. In the opinion of the Court, Standard Form-11 is the statutory
requirement and, in case the department proposes to impose any of the
minor penalties specified in Clause (i) to (iv) of Rule 6, the notice has to
be in this form or at least all its requirements should be substantially
fulfilled. Any communication which does not conform to the statutory
requirements indicated above, cannot be treated as due compliance of the
provisions of Rule 11(1)(a).
20. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view
that the respondents have utterly failed to follow statutory procedure
9
WRIA No. - 19802 of 2025
prescribed under the Rules 1968 and, therefore, the consequential minor
penalty imposed upon the petitioner is found to be unsustainable.
21. As far as the submission that on account of no challenge having
been laid to the first order dated 06.11.2015, challenge to the
consequential order was not sustainable, we are of the view that since the
very basis of challenge to the entire proceedings undertaken by the
respondents in terms of issuance of an order dated 15.10.2015 directing
recovery of Rs. 1,15,455/- from the salary of the petitioner in
installments and also modified order dated 06.11.2015 where the amount
was altered, when examined in the light of relief claimed in the OA
regarding reimbursement of the deducted amount of salary along with
interest, we do not find that mere omission to challenge another order
passed the same day, i.e. on 06.11.2015, would be fatal to the case of the
petitioner. The challenge has to be examined by the writ Court in its
entirety and once it is found that the procedure adopted by the
respondents in imposing penalty was de hors the Rules 1968, we are of
the view that every order involving common features and nature and
detriment to the interest of the petitioner which has ultimately resulted in
recovery/deduction from her salary, is liable to be set aside.
22. As far as the alleged non-implementation of the order dated
15.10.2015, we find that by the time Rs.14,432/- was deducted from the
salary of the petitioner for the month of October, 2015, the subsequent
order dated 06.11.2015 had not come in existence and, therefore, the
submission advanced that the order dated 15.10.2015 was not given
effect to, is found to be contrary to record.
23. In view of the above discussion, dismissal of OA by the Tribunal
on the ground that recovery was a routine step under the Circular dated
01.09.2015 and the action was not a punishment but based upon audit
and vigilance checks conducted at the Institute, is wholly unwarranted
and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
24. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.
10
WRIA No. - 19802 of 2025
25. The order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal is hereby set
aside.
26. The OA is allowed; orders impugned therein are set aside and the
respondents are directed to refund the sums deducted from the salary of
the petitioner in furtherance of the orders dated 15.10.2015 and
06.11.2015 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
recovery/deduction till the same are paid to her. The payment, as
directed, shall be made to the petitioner within a period of two months
from today.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
February 24, 2026
Jyotsana
Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…