K JAGANNADHA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant filed the present O.A. challenging the impugned order dated 2.9.2002 of the 2nd respondent imposing penalty of 5% out in his pension for a period of one year under Rule 6 of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958, under the major penalty proceedings when the charge memo issued to the applicant while in service was under minor penalty proceedings, seeking for declaration that the said punishment imposed on him is arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived and in violation of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for a direction to the respondents to restore the full pension of the applicant forthwith without cut in pension consequent on his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.9.2001 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are briefly as follows:

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that since the charge memo dated 18.3.1997 was issued to the applicant as a minor penalty charge sheet while he was in service, it is not permissible for the 2nd respondent to impose major penalty of 5% cut in his pension for a period of one year under the impugned order dated 2.9.2002. It is further pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the only charge framed against the applicant is that he has failed to intimate the Government in respect of the transactions alleged to have been concluded in the name of his daughters by acquiring two house plots and construction of structures thereon and thereby he contravened Rules 3(,1) and 16 (2) and (3) of AIS (Conduct) Rules, 1968. He further submitted that the charge memo issued to the applicant under Rule 10 of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 under the minor penalty proceedings and this fact is also admitted by the respondents in Para 4 of the reply statement filed by them in O.A. 608/2002 which was disposed of on 5.11.2002. It is further contended by him that since the charge memo itself was issued to the applicant under Rule 10 of AIS (D&A) Rules for the purpose of imposing minor penalty, there is no alternative to the 1st respondent except to impose only minor penalty. Rule 10 contemplates only for imposing major penalty. It is also pointed out by him that it is only Rule 8 of AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 which provides procedure for imposing major penalties. It is further pointed out by him that Union Public Service Commission had advised the State Government to impose on the applicant a major penalty of compulsory retirement with 30% cut of pension on permanent basis. However, the State Government has considered that the proposed punishment is grossly out of line with the gravity of the offence. He therefore contended that such punishment could be recommended or imposed on a member of the service only for a charge of grave misconduct. In Rule 10 of AIS (D&A) Rules, it is clearly stated that the minor penalty proceedings even if instituted before retirement of a member of service will have no effect on pension. He therefore contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the minor penalty proceedings initiated against the applicant get abated since the applicant has retired from service. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there is no provision enumerated under Rule 6 of AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969 according to which 5% cut in pension forms part of minor penalty proceedings.