M.Jagannadha Rao, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the Union of India and the Collector of Central Excise against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Tr. A.No. 660 of 1986 dated 5-12-1986 allowing the petition filed by the respondent.
(2.) The respondent was working as Superintendent of Central Excise. While so, on 14-11-1977 was served with a memo of eight charges and an inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 17-5-1978 stating that charge No. 4 was not proved. Charge No. 8 was partly proved and other charges were held proved. The respondent retired from service on 31-5-1978. A show cause notice dated 18-3-1982 was issued under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter called the Rules) proposing withdrawal of full pension and gratuity admissible to the respondent on the ground that the Government suffered substantial loss of revenue due to the misconduct of the respondent. The respondent submitted an explanation. The Union Public Service Commission was consulted and the Commission felt that charges 4 and 6 were not proved but concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on other charges. Based on the Commissions advice, a penalty of withholding 50% of the pension and 50% of gratuity was awarded to the respondent by orders dated 8-5-1984. Questioning the same, a writ petition was filed by the respondent in the High Court of Madras which was later transferred to the Tribunal. After hearing the respective counsel for the parties, the Tribunal held by judgment dated 5-12-1986 that under Rule 9 of the Rules the competent authority could not withdraw any part of the gratuity inasmuch as the said provision referred merely to withholding of pension and not gratuity. It held that the definition of pension in Rule 3(1)(o) which included gratuity was not applicable for purposes of Rule 9. So far as the penalty of withholding 50% of the pension was concerned, it held that the punishment awarded was too severe, that the lapses were procedural, there was no collusion between the respondent and any party, that the officer had otherwise done excellent work and, therefore, it was a fit case where the withholding of pension of 50% had to be restricted for a period of 10 years instead of on a permanent basis.
(3.) Aggrieved by the said decision of the Tribunal, the Union of India and the Collector, Central Excise have preferred this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent died and his legal representatives have been brought on record.;