Disposed¶30

The Union of India v. Vinay Kumar Srivastava

Patna HC27 Jan 2026CWJC/10050/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: demurrage charges; wharfage charges; recovery from railway employee vs defaulting business establishment; Rule 6 (iii) and Rule 11, Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968; CAT Patna Bench OA/050/00553/2017; order dated 12.12.2024; DRM (Commercial) Sonepur orders 21.03.2016 and 09.09.2016 quashed; refund of recovered amount; writ petition not pressed; liberty to file review petition; no opinion on merits; East Central Railway; Chief Commercial Clerk Naugachhia.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioners to file a review petition before the CAT (Patna Bench) placing the Rules, 1968 before it; the writ petition was treated as not pressed, with no expression of opinion on the merits. ¶30

The Union of India Vs Vinay Kumar Srivastava — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether recovery of the demurrage charges and wharfage charges due from a defaulting business establishment can lawfully be made from the concerned railway employee under Rule 6 (iii) read with Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, contrary to the CAT's finding that no such Rule existed or was cited.

¶23

Court's answer

The Rules, 1968 relied upon by the petitioners (Rule 6 (iii) and Rule 11) had not been brought to the notice of the CAT at the time of the impugned order; counsel for the petitioners answered in the negative when asked.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was not pressed; liberty was granted to the petitioners to approach the CAT by filing an appropriate review petition and placing the Rules, 1968 before it so that proper adjudication could be made.

¶25

Key takeaways

The High Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case; it is for the CAT, at its discretion, to pass appropriate orders upon the review in accordance with law.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Patna (coram: Mohit Kumar Shah and Alok Kumar Pandey, JJ.; oral order per Mohit Kumar Shah, J.), Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10050 of 2025, decided 27-01-2026: Railway petitioners challenged the order dated 12.12.2024 of the CAT, Patna Bench, in OA/050/00553/2017, which had allowed the respondent employee's original application, quashed the DRM (Commercial), Sonepur orders dated 21.03.2016 and 09.09.2016, and directed refund of the recovered demurrage and wharfage charges within three months. Counsel submitted that recovery from the concerned employee is governed by Rule 6 (iii) and Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, but conceded, on being asked, that those Rules were never brought to the CAT's notice. The writ petition was not pressed and was disposed of with liberty to seek review before the CAT, the High Court expressly declining to express any opinion on the merits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10050 of 2025

¶2

======================================================

¶3

The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi110001.

¶4

The Senior DCM, East Central Railway, Sonepur-841101.

¶5

The Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), East Central Railway, Sonepur- 841101.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

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.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

======================================================

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

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

¶13

======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶16

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

¶17

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

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.10050 of 2025(7) dt.27-01-2026 2/4

¶19

(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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.10050 of 2025(7) dt.27-01-2026 3/4

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.10050 of 2025(7) dt.27-01-2026 4/4

¶28

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

¶29

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands

¶30

disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

¶31

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

¶32

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)