MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

The two principal issues that arise for our consideration relate to the interpretation of the proviso to Rule 9(2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the validity of a non-speaking order passed by a disciplinary authority pursuant to a departmental disciplinary inquiry.

In our opinion, the proviso to Rule 9(2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not obligate the President or the disciplinary authority of a delinquent official to supply to him the report of the findings of the disciplinary authority before a final decision is taken by the President on the inquiry report in a departmental disciplinary proceeding. We are also of the opinion that, in law, a disciplinary authority is obliged to give reasons for taking an adverse decision against a delinquent official and imposing a penalty on him.

th

2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by a common order dated 27May, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA Nos. 22/1993 and 3310/1992.

3. The Petitioner was subjected to two departmental disciplinary enquiries by the Respondents on the basis of two charge-sheets issued to him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the Petitioner superannuated and, therefore, the enquiries proceeded against him in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.

4. On the conclusion of the departmental enquiries, the Petitioner was visited with a penalty imposed by the President by two

thth

orders dated 25 January, 1992 and 29 January, 1992. The penalty imposed on the Petitioner in respect of both cases was a 50% cut in pension for 15 years.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the imposition of a penalty, the Petitioner preferred original applications before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In support of his applications, the Petitioner raised four contentions before the Tribunal, all of which were negatived and that is why the Petitioner is now before us. Learned counsel reiterated those contentions before us.

Interpretation of the proviso to Rule 9(2)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

6. It was submitted that under the proviso to Rule 9(2)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 WKH_ 3HWLWLRQHUV_ disciplinary authority is required to submit a report of his findings to the President and it is on the basis of this report that a decision is taken by the President whether to impose any punishment on the delinquent official or not. It was submitted that the report submitted by his disciplinary authority to the President was not supplied to the Petitioner and, therefore, he was unable to represent against it. Consequently, it was contended that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. Rule 9(2)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads as

follows: - ³9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension.

.(1) xxx xxx xxx

.(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 reemployment, 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 the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:

Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President.´ (Emphasis supplied)

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Moti Lal Shakya v. Union of India and others (WP (C) No. 3097/2002 decided on 29th May, 2009). In that decision, there is an observation to the effect that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document