K S SUBRAMANIAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant who was 72 years of age of the time of filing this O.A. had retired on superannuation from service as Senior Commercial Officer of Southern Railway on 30.11.88, while certain disciplinary proceedings involving three charges of demand and receipt of illegal gratification were pending against him. THE applicant is aggrieved by A-1 order dated 30.8.2000 issued 12 years after his superannuation, imposing a penalty of 100% cut in pension on permanent basis. THE applicant seeks the following main relief:

(2.) The respondents have filed a reply statement defending the impugned order and questioning the applicant's competence to assail the same. According to the respondents, this O.A. is not maintainable in view of the fact that the applicant's review petition before the President of India is pending and his prayer therein is under the consideration of the Government. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted and finalised in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the penalty awarded was commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by the applicant. The President of India being the Disciplinary Authority, was bound to consult the UPSC but was not bound to agree with its findings, since consultation was only advisory in nature, it had no binding force. Similarly, consultation with the DOPT also was a matter falling within the President's powers and the President of India after proper application of his mind exercised powers under Rule 2308 of the Act. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice since adequate opportunity had been given to the applicant at the enquiry stage and since two of the three charges levelled against the applicant were proved. The imposition of penalty was only a consequence of misconduct and the delinquent official had to face that consequence. Since the penalty imposed in the case is proportionate to the offence committed, there was no room for the Tribunal to interfere, the respondents would maintain.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. P.Haridas, learned Counsel for the respondents. WE have also perused the elaborate argument notes filed by the learned Counsel. According to Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy, learned Counsel for the applicant, the impugned A-1 order dated 11.9.2000 is an arbitrary order since reasons adduced therein are unsound and unverifiable. According to the learned Counsel, the Presidential right in terms of Rule 2308 of the IREC since changed to Rule 8 of the Railway Servants Pension Rules, 1993, has not been exercised in adherence to the prescribed procedure. There was no provision for consultation with the DOPT. Rule 9(21) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules have not been complied with inasmuch as the applicant was denied reasonable opportunity to rebut the evidence said to have been existing against him. Counsel would further point out that inspite of the applicant's request, certain documents were not allowed to be perused and that the respondents were selective in granting of permission for the applicant's scrutiny. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 853, and the decisions of the C.A.T. in SLJ 2000(3) CAT 209 and 2001 (1) ATJ 335.