JUDGMENT By the Court.—Respondent No. 2 has been proceeded against by issuing a recovery order on the ground that he failed to obtain undertakings from the employees to whom some over payments were made at the time of their pay fixation under the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission in 1997. 2. It appears that Government of India, Department of Finance, had issued an office memorandum dated 14.10.1997 asking the drawing and disbursing officers to obtain undertakings from employee in the form of consent to recover the amounts in the cases of extra payments by way of adjustment etc. However, it appears to be in the nature of only an advice to all the drawing and disbursing authorities. 3. On being asked to return the excess payments, these employees approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, and later the Karnataka High Court against such recoveries. The matter was finally resolved with direction that the Government could recover/adjust the payment of excess amounts only in those cases where undertakings had been obtained, and in other cases, where no such undertakings had been obtained but the excess amounts were recovered, the same have to be returned to the employees. 4. However, it appears that in those cases, where undertakings had not been obtained, the department started recovery proceedings against the Drawing and Disbursing Officers. Respondent No. 2 who was also found to have not obtained undertakings in some such cases of over payments was thus proceeded against. 5. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 was not a party to litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal or the High Court which was a lis only between the employees who suffered recovery notices on account of having received excess payments and the employer-Government. However, out of anxiety to compensate itself for the loss suffered on account of failure on the part of Drawing and Disbursing authorities to obtain undertakings in respect of over-payments, the Department issued notices of recovery against them. Respondent No. 2 being Drawing and Disbursing Authority feeling aggrieved by issuance of notice of recovery approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an O.A., which has been allowed on the ground that the recovery in question was sought to be effected after an inordinate delay of 11 years. 6. In this background, we have heard learned counsel for Union of India and examined the averments made in the writ petition. 7. 6. In this background, we have heard learned counsel for Union of India and examined the averments made in the writ petition. 7. The contentions of learned counsel for petitioner are primarily based on the office memorandum of the Department of Finance, as aforesaid, but on a careful reading of paragraph 5 thereof, we do not find it containing any condition in the nature of direct obligation cast on the Drawing and Disbursing officers to make good the loss suffered on account of the over-payments, in case they had failed to obtain undertakings from the employees while making payments on pay-fixation under the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission. 8. Para-5 of the Circular being relevant for appreciation of contentions of learned counsel for petitioner is reproduced as : “The requirement of pre-check of pay fixation having been dispensed with it is not unlikely that the arrears due in some cases may be computed incorrectly leading to over payments that might have to be recovered subsequently. The Drawing & Disbursing officers should therefore make to the employees under their administrative control, while disbursing the arrears that the payments are being made subject to adjustment from amounts that may be due to them subsequently may also be obtained in writing from every employee at the time of disbursement of the arrears pay and allowances for October 1997 to the effect that any excess payment that may be found to have been made as a result of incurred/fixation of pay in the revised scales will be refunded by him to Government either by adjustment against future payment or otherwise. A specimen form of the undertaking is also enclosed (Annexure-II).” 9. Use of auxiliary like “should” and the sentence as “an undertaking may also be obtained.....” does not seem to suggest in an unequivocal term that obtaining of undertakings by Drawing and Disbursing officers was mandatory. That apart, there is no such allegation that petitioner was in any manner responsible for delay in the disposal of pending litigation between the employees and the Central Government, for, he was not a party to the lis. 10. That apart, there is no such allegation that petitioner was in any manner responsible for delay in the disposal of pending litigation between the employees and the Central Government, for, he was not a party to the lis. 10. As regards the submission of learned counsel that the Relevant Rules are silent on the question as to whether a disciplinary proceeding can be initiated and penalty by way of recovery imposed after an inordinate delay in respect of a past act of negligence of a Government servant, we are of considered view that unless there is an acknowledgment of liability directly or indirectly and the officer has deliberately acted in order to cause prejudice to the interest of State and further that there is no adequate and special reasons pressed in service to justify the delay, initiation of recovery proceedings in obtaining facts and circumstances would not be sustainable. 11. Thus, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed and the impugned order of Tribunal is hereby affirmed. ——————