M P BANSAL Vs. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is aggrieved by the committee's order dated 4.5.1998 passed by the respondents whereby the respondents have imposed on the applicant the penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of three years. He has also prayed for quashing the order dated 19.4.1999 regarding recovery from stagnation increments with a direction to the respondents to calculate his full amount of pension, gratuity and other pensionary benefits without giving effect to the impugned order dated 4.5.1998. He has also prayed for interest at 18% per annum to be paid to him from the date of his retirement i.e. 30.11.1992 till the date of actual payment.

(2.) The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant, who retired from service with the respondent-Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS)-as Principal on 30.11.1992, was posted on deputation as Director of Education, Lakshadweep Administration during the years 1986-88. During that period, according to the respondents, there was a complaint against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that he had committed gross misconduct and that he was responsible for purchasing furniture for schools and colleges for Lakshadweep Administration on higher rates, due to which a loss has been caused to the administration to the tune of Rs. 1,42,000. The respondents have also stated that there was a loss of further amount of Rs. 20,000 on account of transportation charges. He was charge-sheeted on 6.8.1991 for the above alleged misconduct. The applicant had denied the charges and later on, on the advice of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), Departmental inquiry cum CVC was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. The penalty orders have been issued by the respondents on the basis of the charges levelled against him being found proved in the inquiry proceedings in which he had been imposed the penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of three years vide order dated 4.5.1998. The appeal preferred by the applicant against the order was rejected because no appeal lies against the order of the Chairman, KVS in terms of Rule 22(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as the orders had been issued by the Chairman, KVS and Hon'ble Minister of Human Resource Development (HRD).

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has contended that the charge-sheet which was issued to the applicant vide Memorandum dated 6.8.1991 related to incidents which have occurred while the applicant was posted as Director of Education, Lakshadweep Administration during the period from 1986-88. He has submitted that the charge-sheet is delayed and therefore, the same is not maintainable. This plea is rejected because at the time when the charge-sheet was issued, the applicant was still in service and taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty orders cannot be quashed only on this ground of delay and latches. It is relevant to mention that the applicant had also participated in the inquiry proceedings by giving his reply dated 30.8.1991 and according to the applicant, no inquiry was held for 23 months and the inquiry was not concluded till 1996. However, it is noticed that Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 9.4.1996 had directed the respondents to conclude the inquiry within three months. The Hon'ble High Court has also directed the respondents to pay Rs. 50,000 to the applicant which shall be adjusted later on while paying other retiral dues to him subject to his entitlement according to the rules. Respondents have staled that in accordance with the Hon'ble High Court's order, the inquiry was completed vide report dated 26.6.1996 by Commissioner of departmental proceedings, (CVC) and the same was placed before the Hon'ble High Court. Hence, Mr. S. Rajappa, learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the inquiry cannot be held to have been delayed as the same was held after the applicant himself had agreed before the Hon'ble High Court that he would cooperate in the inquiry. Therefore, on this ground also, the departmental inquiry initiated against the applicant cannot be quashed on the ground of delay and latches and the applicant's plea is accordingly rejected.