(1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the central Administrative tribunal, Allahabad (the tribunal) dated 18/7/1990 upholding the order of the President of India under Rule 9 of the central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (the Pension Rules) withholding the entire monthly pension admissible to the appellant and also denying the death-cum-retirement gratuity to which the appellant may be entitled under the Rules.

(2) THE appellant, Sita Ram Yadava, was working as a Sorter in the Railway Mail Service at Kanpur. He was absent from duty from 11/10/1973 to 30-7- 1974. In the night between 20/10/1973/21/10/1973, 70 gms of illicit opium was recovered from Sita Ram Yadava who at that time stated that he was the son of Bhagwati Prasad. He was arrested by the Excise Inspector under the Opium Act. According to the respondents, the arrested person was none other than the appellant who according to the railway record is son of Jhullan Prasad. Sita Ram Yadava was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. An appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. Criminal Revision filed by Yadava was dismissed by the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court on 28/2/1975.

(3) DISCIPLINARY proceedings were initiated against the appellant and as a consequence, he was dismissed from service by the order dated 21/12/1974 under Rule 19(1 of the central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (the Rules). The appellant preferred an appeal which was allowed with a direction to the disciplinary authority to hold an inquiry under Rule 19 of the Rules. Since the case of the appellant before the disciplinary authority was that Sita Ram Yadava who was convicted under the Opium Act was a different person than the appellant, the appellate authority further directed that the disciplinary authority should properly investigate into the identity of the petitioner/convict and thereafter pass final order in the matter. The disciplinary authority as a result of the inquiry passed the order dated 11/6/1984 dismissing the appellant from service. A finding was recorded that the appellant was the same person who had been convicted by the criminal court under the Opium Act.

(4) THE appellant preferred an appeal against the order dated 11/6/1984 and once again the appellate authority allowed the appeal and directed the disciplinary authority to give further hearing to the appellant. It was also directed that opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting expert should also be given. Before the departmental inquiry could be completed, the appellant retired from service on 31/3/1985. The inquiry was, thereafter, converted into one under the Pension Rules. The disciplinary authority finally recorded the finding that it was the appellant who was convicted under the Opium Act. The proceedings were forwarded to the President of India for final orders. The President proposed the provisional punishment of withholding the petitioners pension permanently and not disbursing death-cum-retirement gratuity to him. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 23/8/1985 was issued to the appellant and he submitted his reply. The Union public service commission was consulted which approved the proposed punishment. Finally, the President passed the order of punishment on 5/5/1987.

(5) THE tribunal in the impugned judgment held as under:

"WE do not think, therefore, that there is any doubt in the authenticity of the court papers whose negatives were made over to its Expert. So far as the photographs from the Service-Book and taking of specimen signatures and thumb impressions by the Expert himself on 19-1-1984 is concerned, there is no reason to doubt their genuineness. All these papers, according to the report of the Expert, were obtained from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices/the disciplinary authority. The papers