Union Of India & Ors vs Ms. Surender Kumar Saini
2015 Latest Caselaw 1161 Del

$~11
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                   Date of hearing and order: 9th February 2015.

+     W.P.(C) 6755/2013
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS                       ..... Petitioners
                       Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate
                       versus
      MS. SURENDER KUMAR SAINI                   ..... Respondent
                       Through: Mr.V.S. R.Krishna, Advocate
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
                              ORDER

% KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)

By the present Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioners question the tenability of the order dated 02.04.2013

passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi in O.A.No. 799/2012.

The limited grievance raised by the petitioners is that the learned

Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that the petitioners had only

amended the earlier order on compulsory retirement adding cut in

entitlement in pension and gratuity of the respondent as per the CCS

(Pension) Rules, 1972, which was inadvertently omitted earlier by the

department.

Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate counsel representing the petitioners

submits that vide order dated 5th July 2005, the Disciplinary Authority had

imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement upon the respondent with

immediate effect but when the case of the respondent was sent to CDA for

computing his pension then it was pointed out by the CDA that cases of

compulsory retirement are dealt with under Rule 40(1) of CCS (Pension)

Rules, 1972. However, in the case of the respondent, the quantum of cut in

the pension was not indicated therefore his matter was again processed and a

fresh order dated 5.9.2011 was passed after consulting the DoPT as well as

the UPSC and such an order was passed strictly in accordance with Rule

40(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and therefore, no fault or illegality

can be traced with the fresh order passed by the petitioners. Though the

learned Tribunal in so far as the challenge raised by the respondent to the

punishment dated 5.7.2005 and Inquiry Officer's report dated 12.10.2004

agreed with him however it found the O.A. to be barred by limitation.

However, apropos the challenge raised by the respondent on the amended

order dated 5.9.2011, the learned Tribunal found the said order to be illegal

and not tenable primarily on two grounds; the first being that the petitioners

failed to make available the UPSC's advice to the respondent and no

opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent before a cut in his

pension and gratuity was imposed by the amendment order dated 5.9.2011;

and secondly the learned Tribunal found that the Disciplinary Authority

having once passed the punishment order vide order dated 5.7.2005 became

functus officio and therefore the said punishment order could not have been

modified by the petitioners.

We find no tangible ground to interfere with the order passed by the

learned Tribunal which in our considered view is a well reasoned order.

Finding no merit in the present petition, we dismiss the petition filed by the

petitioners. Consequently, we direct the petitioners to implement the

directions given by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order dated

02.04.2013 apropos the computation of pension of the respondent and to

release the gratuity amount within a period of two months from the date of

this order. We also direct the petitioners to comply with the direction given

by learned Tribunal apropos the release of retiral benefits and also award the

penal interest as is applicable, in favour of the respondent within the said

period.

With aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

I.S. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 09, 2015 pkb