R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) The only question that survives for consideration in this petition filed for direction to opposite parties to pay pension and gratuity of petitioner who retired as Chief Engineer in January 1984, from Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board is as to whether the order passed by Board directing payment of pension after reduction of 50 per cent from it under Article 470 of Civil Service Regulations is well founded in law.
(2.) Prior to adverting to the findings recorded by Board it appears necessary to narrate facts in brief which are not much in dispute. During 11 September 1981 to 31 July 1983, the petitioner held the charge of General Manager, Obra Hydel and Thermal Project. On certain complaints received against him the Government initiated vigilance enquiry which submitted its report after his retirement. It, however, recommended that suitable reduction in pension may be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 470(6) Civil Service Regulations as his services were not satisfactory. This recommendation along with the report was forwarded by Government in September 1984, to the Board with advice to make suitable reduction from the pension. The Government further pointed that action may be taken against petitioner in view of general instructions contained in Government order, dated 26 June 1984. The matter was examined by Secretary of the Board who after taking opinion of its law officer and assistant law officer submitted the papers to Board in May 1985, for imposing punishment of censure or warning only. It may be worthwhile to extract from this report. " In short Sri Mathura Rai has been held responsible by the State vigilance for entrusting higher jobs to the engineer officers. The Board did not consider any action against him and he was only advised that the arrangement made by him may be done away with. Therefore, there appears to be no justification for taking action against him in this regard particularly in the background that no mala fide intention has been attributed to him in the vigilance report. The responsibility in giving the tractor trolly registered in the name of his wife to the wife of contractor on hire also does not devolve on him. Papers in this regard were signed by his son who was not dependent upon him and was employed in the Oriental and General Insurance Company as Inspector. The violation of the Government Servant Conduct Rules in the matter of purchase of landed property and motor car, however, devolve on him but in respect of these transactions the report of the State vigilance does not contain anything indicating that there was any intention on the part of Sri Rai to make the black money white. For violation of Government Servants Conduct Rules relating to sale and purchase of property generally the punishment awarded to the defaulting officers/officials is censure entry or a warning but it does not justify a reduction in pension as no pecuniary loss is caused to the Board. As regards the instructions that punishment so suggested by the vigilance should be awarded to the delinquent officers/officials by the Board, invariably, clarification has been requested for from the Government as to under what rules the Board are bound to punish their employees on the suggestions of the vigilance. The reply from the Government is still awaited. The occasion for seeking clarification arose from the fact that it is the appointing authority or the authority superior to it who is empowered to inflict the major punishment upon the employee in accordance with Article 311 of the Constitution. Minor punishment can be awarded by subordinate authorities as it is evident from rule 53 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The Chairman is the appointing authority of all the officers upto the rank of S. E. and the Board, are, therefore, to take independent decision in regard to the punishments to the officers/officials. The Government can only issue directives on matters of policy in accordance with S 78A(1) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and not on punishments to the employee." In June 1983 the petitioner was confirmed with effect from April 1983. The Government it appears did not agree with secretary's report to award punishment of censure. Consequently the Joint Secretary of Board in July 1985 called for explanation of petitioner and required him to clarify all those aspects on which vigilance had submitted its report against him. To it the reply was filed in same month. Since nothing happened after July 1985 the petitioner filed this petition in December 1985 in which an interim mandamus was issued on 2 February 1987 when no counter-affidavit was filed either to show cause or pay pension and gratuity. It resulted in payment of gratuity and substantial part of pension. A counter-affidavit was also filed. It was stated that matter was pending consideration. The Board accepted recommendation of the vigilance and directed reduction of pension by 5 per cent. It was passed by a single member instead of all the members who constituted the Board. Realising infirmity in the order it was recalled and impugned order was passed on 14 August 1987. The Board found : "... On receipt of his reply, dated 17 July 1985, to the explanation the matter has been examined and carefully considered by the Board and it has been found that the action of Sri Mathura Rai by not withdrawing his own orders making irregular ad hoc promotions despite being advised by the Board, amounts to indiscipline. His conduct has not been found in accordance with rule 3(1) of the Government Servants Conduct Rules as 93 contracts out of 119 in 1981-82 were given by the various officers of Obra Project working under him to a single contractor Sri Prakash Giri who had hired the tractor trolly registered in name of his wife, father and brother. Further he has been found guilty of violation of rule 24(1) of the Government Servants Conduct Rules in the purchase of land cited against item (IV) in Para 1 above as also violation for rule 24(1) of Government Servant Conduct Rules in the purchase of the motor car from his son in October 1982 without obtaining permission of the Board at the proper time. For the above irregularities on his part of the Board are pleased the award of the following punishment : " Final pension of Sri Mathura Rai who has retired from the services the Board shall be sanctioned after making a reduction of 5 per cent therein."
(3.) Since this reduction has been directed to be made in exercise of power under Articles 470(a) and 470(6) of Civil Service Regulations it is extracted below : " 470(a). The full pension admissible under the rules is not given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. Its scope came up for consideration before Hon'ble Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and another [1987-I L. L. N. 768] . It was held after review of various decisions that the power to reduce pension vested in State Government. It was reiterated in State of Maharashtra v. M. H. Mazumdar [1988-I L. L. L. 886] . What stands out from these decisions of Hon'ble Court is that though pension is a valuable right which vested in the employee, the appointing authority has power to reduce in appropriate cases. But if the exercise of power is arbitrary, it is amenable to be interfered with as was done in latter case as reduction by 50 per cent appeared to be unreasonable.;