T.C. THANGARAJ Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before us is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 28.02.2017, whereby, his Original Application, seeking relief against recovery advice dated 31.03.2015, has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not filed an appeal and exhausted the remedy available to him against the recovery order.

(2.) We may point out that recovery appears to be on account of deficiency or loss of tickets as envisaged under Rule 229 of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual. Rule 229, according to the petitioner, envisages the proceedings of enquiry and then imposition of recovery advice, but no such enquiry was held and recovery advice was issued contrary to the stipulations as contained in Rule 229.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no remedy of appeal provided under the said manual or any other provision and urged that even the recovery advice is contrary to the law as has been already declared by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Divisional Commercial Manager, Souther Railway vs. K.Vijayakumar [AIR 2006 KARNATAKA 41].