- (1.) Heard Sri Jai Singh, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A.K. Chaturvedi and Sri Pratul Kumar Srivastava, Advocates for respondents.
(2.) The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2004 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow dismissing Original Application No. 271 of 2000 of petitioner and confirming the order dated 18.04.2000 passed by Government of India, Ministry of Railways communicated by Joint Director Establishment (D &A), Railway Board imposing punishment of deduction of 20 per cent pension of petitioner on permanent basis.
(3.) Factual matrix giving rise to entire dispute is in a narrow campus. Petitioner was initially appointed as Electric Fitter (Power) on 01.09.1955 and promoted to the post of Mistri in 1968, Chargeman in 1974, Chargeman Grade-A in 1980 and then as Assistant Electrical Foreman in 1983. He was given officiating promotion as Electrical Foreman (Power) in February' 1988. He tendered application for voluntary retirement on 31.10.1989 which was accepted by Divisional Railway Manager (P), N.E. Railway, Lucknow and the acceptance was communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 04.12.1989 (Annexure-5 to writ petition). Petitioner, thus, stood voluntarily retired with effect from 31.01.1990. However, before that petitioner had already submitted another letter dated 12.01.1990 withdrawing his request for voluntary retirement but the said application was rejected by Divisional Railway Manager (P) Lucknow vide order dated 01.02.1990. Petitioner then appealed to General Manager (Electrical), N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur vide letter dated 06.02.1990 and explained that in the light of Railway Board's Circular dated 01.06.1981 a Railway servant has a right to withdraw notice of voluntary retirement before expiry of notice period and acceptance of voluntary retirement. Petitioner also moved to Railway Ministry. Railway Board made an enquiry from Chief Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway Gorakhpur as to whether petitioner has submitted any letter on 12.01.1990 seeking withdrawal of his notice for voluntarily retirement and also whether petitioner has received his settlement dues or not. In reply to the aforesaid letter dated 26.03.1990 Chief Personnel Officer vide Radiogram dated 29.03.1990, communicated that petitioner actually submitted application on 12.01.1990 seeking withdrawal of request for voluntary retirement and also till that date, i.e., 29.03.1990, his settlement dues were not paid. He also informed that Divisional Railway Manager is being asked to review the case of petitioner. Consequently vide order dated 07.09.1990 passed by Divisional Railway Manager (P) petitioner was taken on duty and period of absence was directed to be considered as leave due. Petitioner then made a request by letter dated 08.09.1990 that period of absence being not attributable to him should be treated as on duty and also requested for payment of salary. In the meantime, it also appears that petitioner's settlement dues to the tune of Rs. 1,55,888/- were forwarded to him vide two cheques dated 27.03.1990 and 06.04.1990 which were deposited in Bank for collection. Petitioner claims to have sent a letter dated 07.09.1990 to Divisional Railway Manager requesting to inform him as to under which head the said amount were paid and whether it is to be refunded to department or not and if so under which head and in which department. Petitioner ultimately on attaining the age of superannuation retired on 30.11.1991. However, on the last date of retirement, he was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1968 ). It is pursuant to the aforesaid charge-sheet, after retirement, impugned order of punishment has been passed deducting pension by 20 per cent on permanent basis.;