The central legal point established in the judgment is that acts breaching the core value of an officer's duty, even if involving negligence or carelessness, can be considered as grave misconduct, justifying disciplinary action under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners inter alia praying for quashing the order and judgment dated February 3, 2012 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in Review Application being No. 213 of 2011 and Original Application being No. 2754 of 2009 wherein the learned Tribunal has held that the respondent No.1 would be entitled to his normal pension with effect from his date of retirement and the amount of pension deducted so far shall be refunded to the respondent No.1 forthwith.

2. The respondent No.1 in the instant writ petition was working as Deputy General Manager, Telecom District Dhule, Maharashtra Telecom Circle, Mumbai when major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were initiated against him vide Memorandum dated September 22, 2003.

3. The Inquiry Officer, after conclusion of the inquiry, submitted his report dated September 23, 2006 wherein he held the charges framed against the respondent No.1 to be fully established inter alia by holding that: “XV. The flaws in the estimate work order, bills along with the joint measurement book were totally not checked by the CO. The CO’s plea is that he is not supposed to check all these matters and he has only to sign the documents seems little strange and improper. The CO failed to maintain absolute integrity, displayed gross lack of devotion to duty, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant and also failed to ensure integrity and Devotion to duty of Shri R M Joshi, SDE and Shri D C Das, DE working Under his control and authority and thereby contravened Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii), (iii) and 3 (2) (i) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

4. Meanwhile the respondent No.1 attained the age of superannuation and retired from his services with effect from October 31, 2005 and thereafter, as a result, the said proceedings were deemed to be under the provisions of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

5. The copy of the said inquiry report along with the advice tendered by the Central Vigilance Commission was sent to the respondent No.1 who on the receipt of the same responded with a detail detailed representation dated February 14, 2007 against the same to the Disciplinary Authority, President of India.

6. Thereafter, the records of the entire disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.1 were forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission, impleaded as the

respondent No.1 No. 5 in the instant writ petition, for their advice. On January 21, 2008 the Union Public Service Commission while tendering its advice about the quantum of punishment observed that the charges proved against the respondent No.1 constitute grave misconduct on his part and therefore, the ends of justice would be met if a penalty of 20% cut in monthly pension for a period of 5 years is imposed on the respondent No.1.

7. The Disciplinary Authority, President of India, accepted the aforesaid advice of the Union Public Service Commission and vide order dated February 22, 2008 imposed penalty of 20% cut in pension for a period of 5 years on the respondent No.1.

8. On September 16, 2008 the respondent No.1 being aggrieved by such an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority filed a revision application under Rule 29 (i) of CCA (CCA) Rules, 1965. The President of India while treating the said revision application of the respondent No.1 as a review petition under Rule 29-A of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 came to the conclusion that that no new material or evidence has been brought before it by the respondent No.1 and therefore the said review petition was held to be devoid of merits and was rejected vide order dated January 7, 2009.

9. Being aggrieved by the above orders dated February 22, 2008 and January 7, 2009, the respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal by filling Original Application being No. 2754 of 2009. The Tribunal observed that there had been no procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings. It further o