RAMESH CHANDRA MATHUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is aggrieved by the order issued by the respondents dated 22.5.1995 imposing on him a penalty of 25% cut in pension otherwise payable to him for a period of five years with immediate effect. This order has been passed by the President after holding a disciplinary proceeding against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 1965 Rules'). THE applicant retired from service of the respondents on 31.7.1994 and the impugned order has been passed by the President under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the pension Rules').

(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents that the O.A. is barred by limitation. The applicant has filed M.A. 76/2001 praying for condonation of delay of the period from 1.3.1991 to 2.8.2000 in filing the O.A.

(3.) IN M.A. 76/2001, the applicant has stated that he was aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.1988 placing him under suspension and the charge-sheet issued by the respondents dated 12.12.1990 which was served on him on 1.1.1991. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant after the applicant retired from service on 31.7.1994, he came to New Delhi and is a resident here. Accordingly, he moved PT 88/2000 which was allowed by the Hon'ble Chairman on 28.4.2000 and the records of the O.A. pending before the Jabalpur Bench were called for listing before the Principal Bench. This was done on 28.6.2000 when O.A. 788/91 and O.A. 696/92 were dealt with by the Tribunal (Principal Bench) by order dated 28.6.2000. IN this order, it has been noted that after the records were received in New Delhi, it transpired that the O. As. referred to above, have already been disposed of finally by the jabalpur Bench by Judgment dated 25.8.1999. As nothing survived, the O.As were sent back to the Jabalpur Bench. Mr. N.S. Verma, learned Counsel has contended that it was only after the applicant received a copy of the order dated 28.6.2000 which was sent by the Registry on 2.8.2000 that the applicant became aware that the two O.As he had filed in the Jabalpur Bench, which were pending at the time of his retirement, have already been disposed of there. He has submitted that an application had been filed by the applicant in February, 1996 to challenge the final order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority on 22.5.1995 which is referred to in Paragraph 2 of the Tribunal's order (Jabalpur Bench) dated 25.8.1999. He relies on the observations in that order that although the O.A. was dismissed, liberty had been granted to the applicant to file a fresh application with an application for condonation of delay which he has done. He has, therefore, contended that in the circumstances of the case, after receipt of the order dated 28.6.2000 on 2.8.2000, the present application has been filed within time on 9.1.2001.