Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 831
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Satish Chandra Sharma, S.Vishwajith Shetty, JJ.
Union Of India Through The Finance Secretary Ministry Of Finance Dept. Of Revenue Govt Of India New Delhi - Appellant
Vs.
T.C.Gupta S/o Gyan Chand Gupta - Respondent
Writ Petition No.7993 of 2020(S-CAT) C/W Writ Petition No.5530 of 2021(S-CAT)
Decided On : 24-03-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.B.Pramod, ADV.
For the Respondent: Sri.T.C.Gupta
Headnote:
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 15(6) - CCC (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 9 - CCS (Conduct) Rules - Rule 8 - CCC (Pension) Rules - Rule 9 - Post of Inspector of Income Tax - Punishment order of stoppage of 10% of pension - In WP reveal that sole respondent before this Court was appointed in Income Tax Department on post of Inspector of Income Tax and retired after attaining age of superannuation - While he was in service he was charge sheeted and the misconduct reflected from charge sheet revolves around the publication of a book published by respondent-employee - There were three charges alleged against respondent-employee and Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquiry strictly in consonance with Rules, 1965 gave a clean chit to the employee by submitting an enquiry report - Held, Court opinion that wrong mentioning of a statutory provision will not render the order as void abinitio - Facts remain that procedure prescribed for inflicting a punishment upon a government servant has been followed and merely because in place of Rule 9, Rule 15(6) has been mentioned, order cannot be treated as bad in law - This Court, keeping in view totality of circumstances of case and Rule 15 of Rules, 1964, is of opinion that Tribunal at the first instance could not have ordered a De novo enquiry without mentioning any statutory provision of law and at second instance Tribunal could not have ordered quashment of the charge sheet itself - Writ petition preferred by Union of India and others is dismissed and writ petition preferred by respondent-employee is allowed.
ORDER :
WP No.7993/2020 is filed by petitioners-Union of India and another and the connected writ petition i.e., WP No.5530/2021 is filed by the respondent-employee being aggrieved by the orders dated 17.12.2019 passed in the Original Application No.170/01512/2018 and the Review Application No.170/00017/2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench.
2. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they were heard analogously together and a common order is being passed.
3. The facts of the case in WP No.7993/2020 reveal that the sole respondent-T.C.Gupta before this Court was appointed in the Income Tax Department on 17.12.1979 on the post of Inspector of Income Tax and retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2014. While he was in service he was chargesheeted and the misconduct reflected from the charge sheet revolves around the publication of a book published by the respondent-employee. There were three charges alleged against the respondent-employee and the Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquiry strictly in consonance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘CCS(CCA), Rules’) gave a clean chit to the employee by submitting an enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the enquiry report forwarded a note of disagreement on 19.10.2017 to the respondent-employee and at the relevant point of time he was no longer in service. Keeping in view the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972, (for short ‘CCC (Pension) Rules) the matter was forwarded to the UPSC as the only punishment which could have been awarded was reduction in pension/withholding of gratuity. The UPSC finally gave advise in the matter and an order was passed on 11.04.2018 proposing for inflicting a punishment of stoppage of 10% of pension. Against the findings of the UPSC, an opportunity was afforded to the respondent-employee to submit a representation and he did submit a representation on 28.05.2018 and finally on 22.06.2018 a punishment order was passed inflicting a punishment order of stoppage of 10% of pension. The order dated 22.06.2018 was challenged before the Tribunal on various grounds.
4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent-employee in question that for publication of a book, no permission is required and there was a deemed permission as no final order was passed keeping in view Rule 8 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. His further contention is that the order of punishment is bad in law as no permission was obtained from President of India keeping in view Rule 9 of CCC (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 9 of the CCC (Pension) Rules, reads as under:
“9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension.
(1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement :
Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed :
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of such pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensem.]
(2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in t
