- (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (the tribunal) dated July 18, 1990 upholding the order of the President of India under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (the Pension Rules) withholding the entire monthly pension admissible to the appellant and also denying the death-cum-retirement gratuity to which the appellant may be entitled under the rules.
(2.)The appellant, Sita Ram Yadava, was working as a Sorter in the Railway Mail Service at Kanpur. He was absent from duty from October 11, 1973 to July 30, 1974. In the night between October 20/21, 1973, 70gms of illicit opium was recovered from Sita Ram Yadava who at that time staved that he was the son of Bhagwati Prasad. He was arrested by the Excise Inspector under the Opium Act. According to the respondents the arrested person was none other than the appellant who according to the railway record is son of Jhullan Prasad. Sita Ram Yadava was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. Criminal Revision filed by Yadava was dismissed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on February 28,1975.
(3.)Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant as a consequence he was dismissed from service by the order dated December 21,1974 under Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (the Rules). The appellant preferred appeal which was allowed with a direction to the disciplinary authority to hold an inquiry under Rule 19 of the Rules. Since the case of the appellant before the disciplinary authority was that Sita Ram Yadava who was convicted under the Opium Act was a different person than the appellant, the appellate authority further directed that the disciplinary authority should properly investigate into the identity of the petitioner/ convict and thereafter pass final order in the matter. The disciplinary authority as a result of the inquiry passed the order dated June 11, 1984, dismissing the appellnat from service. A finding was recorded that the appellant was the same person who had been convicted by the criminal Court under the Opium Act.