- (1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 26.2.2003 (Annexure P.3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner challenging the order of forfeiture of past service i.e. from 30.4.1966 to 6.12.1980, was dismissed.
(2.) The petitioner joined as Lower Division Clerk in the office of respondent No. 3 on 30.4.1966. He retired as Deputy Officer Superintendent on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.1998 from the office of respondent No. 2. The petitioner was granted leave upto 6.12.1980, but he joined duties on 9.2.1983. It is a case of the petitioner that on account of Ulcer in the eyes, he could not join the duties. In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on account of his absence from duties, an order of punishment was passed on 30.7.1984 (Annexure A.2) holding that the petitioner had not applied for leave beyond 6.12.1980 and that he was on unauthorised absence from 6.12.1980 till 8.2.1983. After returning such finding, following punishment has been imposed :- "(i) The period from 7.12.80 to 8.2.83 should be treated as a period of unauthorised absence and a break in service; (ii) I also impose a penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect from the date of increment accruing to him after the issue of this order." The said order of punishment was affirmed in appeal vide order dated 23.5.1985. Thereafter, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.1998. However, the petitioner was not granted benefit of pension for the period 30.4.1966 to 6.12.1980 on the ground that such period stands forfeited on account of order of punishment (Annexure A.2).
(3.) Aggrieved against the action of the respondents in forfeiting the service, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the application, inter-alia, on the ground that the order of punishment cannot be permitted to be disputed after a long lapse of time and that under Fundamental Rule 17A, the period of unauthorised absence shall be taken to cause an interruption or break in service, which leads to forfeiture of the past service. The Tribunal relies upon Rules 27 and 28 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules') and Article 412 of the Civil Services Regulations, to hold that the entire past service stands forfeited.;