The judgment establishes the principle that allegations of grave misconduct or grave negligence must be supported by specific evidence and findings, and that penalties should be imposed in accordance with the established rules and procedures.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Union of India assailing the order dated 10.4.2006 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CAT) allowing OA No.110/2005 filed by the respondent. Challenge in the OA was to order dated 22.1.2004, passed by the President whereby respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct and grave negligence and was imposed penalty of 20% cut in monthly pension for five years and 20% cut in gratuity otherwise admissible to the respondent. CAT by the impugned order quashed the cut in monthly pension and gratuity holding the same to be illegal since it was imposed without returning a finding of there being grave misconduct or grave negligence.

2. This case has a checkered history. Respondent was working as Senior Accounts Officer in the office of the Controller of Accounts. While in service he was charged under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules,1965 and was put under suspension on 29.10.1997. The charge sheet alleged violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) for failing to maintain devotion to duty; Rule 3(1)(iii) for doing something which is unbecoming of a Government servant; 3(2)(i) for failing to supervise and take all possible steps to ensure integrity and devotion to duty of the government servants who were working under him and under his control and authority at the relevant time; 3(2)(ii) for having not performed his official duty in exercise of the power conferred on him and having acted otherwise than to his best judgment and also without the direction of his official supervisor.

3. During the pendency of the enquiry respondent superannuated on 30.4.1998. Thereafter enquiry under Rule 9(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules was conducted and in consultation with the UPSC, Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 21.8.2001 imposed penalty of withholding 50% of monthly pension on permanent basis and 50% of gratuity admissible to the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order respondent filed OA No.1354/2002 before the CAT. The said application was allowed vide order dated 7.3.2003. Thereafter in consequence of the said order of the CAT, Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of 20% cut in monthly pension for five years and 20% cut from monthly gratuity otherwise admissible, vide order dated 22.1.2004 Against this order respondent filed OA No.110/2005 before the CAT challenging the order of penalty. The said order was set aside by the CAT vide its impugned order dated 10.4.2006,holding:- 11. We have perused the Memorandum issued to the applicant under rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules,1965 and find that nowhere the applicant has been alleged to have committed, in any manner, to constitute either `grave misconduct or `grave negligence. 12. On perusal of the inquiry report, we find that the inquiry officer, except recording the finding of unbecoming of the Govt. servant, has not recorded reasons as well as the findings as to commission of grave misconduct or grave negligence by the applicant. 13. In the light of the above, once there is no finding recorded in the course of the disciplinary proceedings, the condition precedent having not been satisfied, the President has no jurisdiction to pass an order of penalty with regard to cut in pension or gratuity under Rule 9 of the rules ibid. Resultantly, the impugned order passed cannot be sustained in law.

4. As noted it is this order dated 10.4.2006 which is under challenge before us in the present writ petition.

5. Ms.Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent was guilty of grave negligence and grave misconduct in as much as bills were passed without verifying the signatures and that the companies in whose favour the bills were raised were fictitious. She further urged that the sanction accompanying the bills were from the Budget Control Section and not the user department and that the respondent should have known that the Budget Control Section does not have the responsibility of p