Non-participation in the enquiry proceedings can lead to adverse findings and uphold the imposed penalty.

REKHA PALLI, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition assailing the orders dated 3rd December, 2015 & 12th February, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, vide which both his original application being OA No.4140/2010 and review application being RA No.04 of 2016 have been dismissed.

2. The petitioner had preferred the said original application before the Tribunal to assail the order dated 24th September, 2010 whereby a penalty of 10% cut in pension for three years had been imposed upon him. He had also challenged the charge memo issued to him, as also the consequential departmental proceedings taken against him which had led to the issuance of the penalty order dated 24th September, 2010. The facts of the case, as are necessary for adjudication of the present petition, are that the petitioner who had been appointed as Engineer (Supervisory) in the Department of Telecommunication, was upon his promotion to the post of General Manager (Telecom), posted to Moradabad, UP. He was thereafter transferred to Muzaffarnagar on 18th September, 2003 which is also in the state of UP. While posted as GMTD, Muzaffarnagar the petitioner was detained in custody by the CBI and was, therefore, immediately placed under deemed suspension as per Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which suspension continued from time to time. Upon reaching the age of superannuation on 30th April, 2006, he was allowed to retire.

3. Soon after his superannuation the petitioner was issued a memorandum of charges dated 5th October, 2006 wherein he was charged with violation of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, inter alia, on the ground that he had failed to direct his subordinate officers to complete the tender process, which resulted in extension of previous tender from 29th September, 2000 to 29th May, 2002 during which period, a sum of Rs.56,00,000/- was paid to the old contractor namely M/s Sirohi Detective & Security Agency as against the estimated costs of Rs.15,00,000/- of the previous tender. The charges levelled against the petitioner are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:-

“ARTICLE:

That the said Shri RPS Panwar while posted and working as GMTD Moradabad during the period 19.4.1999 to 16.6.2002 committed following irregularities while approving and extending the tender of security guards which amount to misconduct:-

1. During the aforesaid period, tender of M/s Sirohi Detective and Security Agency (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad was extended from 29.9.2000 to 29.5.2002 despite receipt of instructions from corporate office to engage security guards through DGR sponsored agency and favoured M/s Sirohi Detective and Security Agency (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad for more than 1-1/2 years. The said Shri RPS Panwar failed to direct subordinate officers to complete the tender processing at the earliest.

2. Tender of security arrangement was valid up to 28.9.2000. Fresh tenders for security arrangements were invited after 7 months from the expiry of previous tender and old contractor M/s Sirohi Detective and Security Agency (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad was allowed to perform security arrangement till new arrangements were made. The said Shri RPS Panwar failed to notice the non-processing of the case for fresh tender well in advance before expiry of period of earlier tender.

3. There were clear instructions to make security arrangement through DGR sponsored agencies, even then open tender in the name of watch and ward arrangement were invited vide NIT no. GMTD/MRD/Admn/Tender/Watch & Ward 02-03 dated 6.03.2002.

4. Estimated cost of previous tender was Rs.15 lac whereas during extended period an amount of more than Rs.56 Lac has been paid to M/s Sirohi Detective Agency. The said Shri RPS Panwar failed to object while the bills were processed for the same through him.

5. Tenders were invited vid