Uoi And Anr vs Dr. B.N. Mittal
2012 Latest Caselaw 6994 Del

               THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Judgment delivered on: 06.12.2012


W.P.(C) 9562/2007

UOI AND ANR                                            ..... Petitioners


                                         versus


DR. B.N. MITTAL                                        ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in these cases:
For the Petitioners   : Mr R.V. Sinha with Mr A.S. Singh
For the Respondent    : Mr K.K. Khurana, Sr Advocate with Ms Tamali Wad



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.03.2007 passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

(Tribunal) in O.A. No.2339/2004 the petitioner had challenged the

Disciplinary Authority's order dated 09.07.2004 whereby he had been

awarded the punishment of 100% cut on pension on permanent basis along

with forfeiture of the entire gratuity amount.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a Charge

Memo on 14.12.1999 containing three articles of charge. The disciplinary

proceedings were initiated and continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension)

Rules, 1972. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.11.2001

whereby he had held that none of the articles of charge were proved against

the respondent. Thereafter the second stage CVC advice dated 27.05.2003

was obtained. By a letter dated 18.06.2003 the grounds of disagreement of

the Disciplinary Authority were communicated to the respondent. On

04.07.2003, the objections/representations of the respondent were furnished

insofar as the disagreement notice was concerned. Thereafter, the UPSC

advice was rendered on 22.04.2004 and the Disciplinary Authority passed

the order dated 09.07.2004 imposing 100% cut in pension permanently and

also entailing forfeiture of the entire gratuity amount. Since the President

was the Disciplinary Authority, there was no provision of appeal and

consequently, the respondent filed the said O.A. No.2339/2004 before the

Tribunal challenging the said order dated 09.07.2004.

3. The Tribunal held in favour of the respondent. According to the

Tribunal the order dated 09.07.2004 had been passed by the Disciplinary

Authority without any application of mind. The Tribunal was of the view

that because no reasons have been recorded in the said order, it demonstrated

non-application of mind and this had greatly prejudiced the respondent.

4. The original file has been produced before this Court. On going

through the original file, it appears prima facie that there the reasons exist on

the file though they have not been communicated to the respondent. At this

juncture, Mr Khurana submitted that as this file had not been placed before

the Tribunal, it would be appropriate if the matter is remitted back to the

Tribunal, which may examine this file and then pass appropriate orders.

5. We agree with Mr Khurana that since the Tribunal did not have the

occasion to examine the original file and, therefore, did not have the benefit

of the same, it cannot be faulted for arriving at the conclusion that it did.

Consequently, the best course would be to set aside the impugned order and

remit the matter to the Tribunal to consider the case afresh after hearing the

parties. The petitioner shall produce the relevant file before the Tribunal at

the time of hearing.

6. In the first instance, the matter be listed before the Tribunal on

17.01.2013. We make it clear that the Tribunal shall re-consider the entire

matter afresh without being influenced by its earlier order and/or any

observations made by us in this order.

7. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

DECEMBER 06, 2012 dn