P K SUDHAKARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by A5 ordered dated 15.12.1998 issued by the 3rd respondent imposing the penalty of 20% cut in the pension for a period of one year on the applicant and A6 letter dated 23.11.1998 issued by the 2nd respondent recommending the imposition of penalty of 20% cut in the pension of the applicant for a period of one year, the applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:--

(2.) The applicant retired on superannuation while working as a Junior Clerk from the service of the Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering Training (CIFNET for short) on 31.10.1996. While working as Junior Clerk under the 3rd respondent, he had carried out a tenure duty as Cashier during the period April 1998 (learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that this should be April 1993 to June 1993). After completion of the tenure, he had been issued with Al memo dated 25.8.1993 asking for his explanation for the discrepancies which had happened during his tenure as Cashier. By A2 memo dated 7.9.1994 issued by the 3rd respondent, the applicant was directed to make good the shortage of Rs. 2630/- on account of wrong payments made by him during his tenure. By A3 memo dated 6.7.1995 issued by the Senior Administrative Officer, CIFNET, the applicant was advised to be careful in future. By A4 memo dated 12.1.1996 he was charged with wilful attempt to cheat the Government for monetary gains by manipulation of records. The applicant denied the charges. A departmental enquiry was held. While the enquiry was in progress, he retired on superannuation on 31.10.1996. The enquiry was completed after the applicant's retirement and a report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 2.4.1997. The applicant submitted his objection against the findings of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority forwarded his comments on the enquiry report to the appropriate authority under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules. The applicant filed O.A. No. 681/98 before this Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously. By order dated 5.6.1998 this Tribunal directed the respondents to finalise the proceedings within a period of three months. By A5 order the 3rd respondent imposed a penalty of 20% cut in the pension for a period of one year on the applicant. The applicant also received a copy of A6 letter dated 23.11.1998 of the 1st respondent recommending the above said punishment. Alleging that A5 and A6 were arbitrary and illegal, the applicant filed this Original Application seeking the above reliefs.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the applicant Mrs. Preethi Ramakrishnan took us through the pleadings in the Original Application. She specifically referred to the contents of paragraph 7.3 of A6 order, wherein the specific finding as included in the enquiry report and the decision of the disciplinary authority on each of them had been summarised by the 2nd respondent. She also referred to paragraph 7.4 of A6, wherein the UPSC's findings on the charges were summarised. She submitted that in the face of the UPSC's findings and in the light of Rule 9, the recommendation for imposition of the penalty of 20% cut in the pension under Rule 9 was not permissible and was required to be interfered with by this Tribunal. She also submitted that in A5 there is no indication that the said order had been issued in accordance with the Rule 9 and that it had not been issued in the name of the President. She submitted that even though along with the reply statement the respondents have produced R3( 1), the said letter had not been served on the applicant. Learned Counsel for respondents Mr. S.K. Balachandran took us through the reply statement and submitted that the applicant had been negligent which caused monetary loss to the Government and punishment had been imposed for the said offence and the punishment imposed was well within the provisions of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.