B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, 1995 SCC (6) 749; Union of India vs. Subrata Nath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998—Relied.

Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Karn, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. In the instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 050/00613/2014 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 whereby and whereunder petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.04.2014 whereby the petitioner was awarded punishment of ‘withholding of 25% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the petitioner for a period of five years’ in a disciplinary proceeding held pursuant to the Charge Memorandum No. 5240 dated 04.12.2012 and further Order No. 11014/42/L&R/2013/1108 dated 23.04.2014 passed under the signature of Dy. Inspector General/Pers., Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi as contained in Annexure – P/6 imposing punishment upon the petitioner of ‘withholding of 25% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the petitioner for a period of five years’.

3. The petitioner was appointed on 15.04.1985. He had reported in CISF 8th RB Jaipur from CISF 2nd RB Ranchi, and was taken on strength on 30.11.2009. The petitioner retired on attaining age of superannuation w.e.f. 28.02.2013 while he was posted at CISF 8th RB Jaipur.

4. The examination was conducted for recruitment of SI/Exe and ASI/Exe at CISF 8th RB Jaipur from 21.08.2012 to 12.09.2012. Medical Examination was conducted for selected candidates from 22.08.2012 to 13.09.2012. For the recruitment of SI/Exe and ASI/Exe at CISF 8th RB Jaipur, quotations for conducting medical examination of the candidates were invited from outside diagnostic centers for minimizing the expenditure. On 14.09.2012, a complaint letter addressed to the SP, CBI, Jaipur was made by one of the candidates, Shubhakaran Singh alleging therein that bribe of Rs. 10,000/- was demanded from him. On the basis of said allegation, the matter was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. On 14.09.2012, CBI conducted raid of the premises of Dr. B. L. Roy and seized Rs.1,00,500/-. In course of further investigation and on the basis of statement of the accused persons arrested by the CBI, name of the petitioner was disclosed that he was also involved in such malpractice which was ongoing in the medical examination test. Statement of the petitioner was recorded on 16.09.2012 wherein he accepted that he had introduced Dr. B. L. Roy with Shri Shashikant Bharadwaj in Jalmahal on 07.09.2012. Thereafter, Charge Memorandum No. 5240 dated 04.12.2012 under Rule 14 of the CSS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was served to the petitioner while he was posted on the post of Pharmacist at Jaipur and he was directed to submit his representation within a period of ten days from receiving of the memorandum.

5. The Charge Memorandum No. 5240 dated 04.12.2012 consisted of two charges as under:—

vkjksi&01 & dsvkSlqc 8oh vkjf{kr okfguh t;iqj esa fnukad 21-08-2012 ls 12-09-2012 rd dsUæh; l'kL=k iqfyl cy ds fy, mfu@dk;Z vkSj dsvkSlqc ds fy;s lmfu@dk;Z in ds fy, dh x;h HkrhZ esa p;fur lnL;ksa dh fnukad 22-08-2012 ls 13-09-2012 rd fpfdRlk ijh{k.k djk;k x;kA la[;k 851010087 QkekZflLV lqjsUæ HkDrk us ,d vuq'kkflr cy esa gksrs gq, Hkh fpfdRlk 'kk[kkvksa ls fy, x;s dksVs'ku fooj.k dk mnHksnu dj Jh MkbXuksflLV lsUVj vkesj dks ykHk igqapkus ds bjkns ls crk;k ftlls mldk dksVs'ku ek=k ,d :i;k de fn;k x;k ,oa HkrhZ esa p;fur lnL;ksa dks fpfdRlk ijh{k.k esa ikl djkokus ds fy, xyr bjkns ls Hkkj}kt esfMdYl ds lapkyd 'kf'kdkUr Hkkj}kt dk MkWŒchŒ,yŒ jk; ls lEidZ djk;k vkSj mlds i'pkr lhchvkbZ us MkŒchŒ,yŒ jk; dks 8oha vkjf{kr okfguh dsvkSlqc t;iqj ifjlj ls fxjQ~rkj fd;k ftlls cy dh Nfo èkwfey gqbZ vkSj vke turk esa cy ds Áfr xyr lUns'k igqapkA vr% ,d vuq'kkflr cy esa gksus ds ukrs la[;k 851010087 QkekZflLV lqjsUæ HkDr dk mDr