Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs R P Verma on 27 May, 2014
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3450/2014
% Date of decision: 27th May, 2014
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. R.C. Gautam, Mr. H.P.
Chakrovorty, Advs.
versus
R P VERMA ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. G.S. Lobana, Mr. K.K. Sharma,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 7072/2014 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No.3450/2014
1. The writ petition assails the order dated 1st February, 2013
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi
accepting the OA No. 3511/2011. The writ petition also assails the
order dated 3rd October, 2013,whereby RA No. 104/2013 passed by
the petitioner was set aside.
2. It appears that the disciplinary proceedings were commenced
on 23rd February, 2002 against the present respondent under Rule 14
of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the respondent. Further he was
superannuated from service on 31st March, 2002. The disciplinary
proceedings continued in terms of proviso No. 2, Rule 9 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 and culminated in a report dated 24th October,
2003, whereby, the Inquiry Officer upheld that Article 2 and Article 3
of the Charges had not been proved. It appears that the Disciplinary
Authority/ Senior Superintendent, Post Office, Agra Division, Agra
issued a dis-agreement note dated 27th October, 2003 whereby, he
upheld that all charges levelled against the applicant stood proved.
3. It is submitted that such a finding was in violation of Rule 15
(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 inasmuch as, the Disciplinary
Authority was only empowered to give tentative reasons for dis-
agreement which has been communicated to the official concerned
and he was entitled to opportunity to make a representation against
the same.
4. The respondent herein also pointed out that in view of his
superannuation from service on 31st March, 2002, and the
continuation of the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 (2) of the
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the dis-agreement Note should have been
issued on behalf of President of India and approved by the Competent
Authority as stipulated in the proviso of the Rules.
5. Instead, then disciplinary authority had issued the dis-
agreement letter to the respondent without any justification. Pursuant
to the dis-agreement Note, the disciplinary authority issued an order
dated 25th March, 2003 finding the respondent guilty of the charges
and imposing the punishment of withholding 50% of the pension as
well as the entire gratuity permanently. The said penalty was upheld
by the Reviewing Authority i.e. the President of India vide
Presidential order dated 13th May, 2011.
6. The respondent challenged the orders against him by way of
OA No. 3511/2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, Delhi who had accepted the challenge by the
impugned judgment dated 1st February, 2013. On a reading of Rule 9
(2) of the CCS Pension Rules, it has been held that the Tribunal has
accepted the respondent's contention that the dis-agreement Notes
dated 27th October, 2003, as well as order dated 25th March, 2004 and
13th May, 2011 were in contravention of the Rule 9 (2) of the
CCS(Pension) Rules. These orders were consequently set aside and
quashed.
7. As a result, the Tribunal has found the respondent entitled to all
consequential benefits including restoration of pension with payment
of up to date arrears forthwith. At the same time, the Tribunal has
remanded the case of the applicant back to the Disciplinary Authority
to reconsider the issue and pass a speaking order after giving the
applicant the tentative reasons for dis-agreement with the Inquiry
Officer's report as well as keeping in mind the fact that the
respondent had retired as back as on 31st March, 2002.
8. We may note that while granting liberty to reconsider the order
dated 1st February, 2013, the Tribunal mandated that its direction shall
be complied with within a period of three months of the receipt of the
copy of the order.
9. The review filed by the petitioner vide R.A. No. 104/2013 in
OA No. 3511/2011 has been rejected by Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide an order dated 3rd October,
2013.
10. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the
petitioner has not moved a single steps and as such forfeited all right
to take any action against the respondent. We may note that the
petitioner has not sought extension of time which was granted to him
by the Tribunal to comply with the directions of payment of
consequential benefits including restoration of pension as well as upto
date arrears. It is clarified that we have only noted the contentions
advanced on behalf of respondent and have not commented thereon.
11. Nothing has been pointed out to enable us to take a different
view. We find no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed as
such.
12. Having regard to the manner in which the petitioners are
proceeding in the matter, they are liable to be burdened with costs
which are fixed @ Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid to the respondent
within a period of 8 weeks from today.
CM No. 7071/2014(Stay)
In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the instant
application has been rendered infructuous and dismissed as such.
GITA MITTAL, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 27, 2014
j
