P.Sathasivam, J.: Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19.8.2004 made in O.A.No.55 of 2004, Ministry of Defence, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs. Government of India. New Delhi and the Commissioner of Customs. Chennai have preferred the above writ petition.

2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties, as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The applicant joined service as Lower Division Clerk on 8.1.1962 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in 1970 and further promoted as Preventive Officer in November. 1982 and retired on superannuation on 31.7.2000. A charge memo dated 1.7.1998 was issued to the applicant on the ground of lack of devotion to duty, thereby contravening Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. 1961 (in short “the Rules”). Along with the applicant, other Preventive Officers were also issued with charge sheet and common enquiry was held against all the delinquents, in which the applicant also participated. The Enquiry Officer’s report dated 15.4.2002 holding that the charges proved was served on the applicant. The applicant submitted his representation to the disciplinary authority on 26.9.2002 and even after retirement, an enquiry was conducted and ultimate!) an order was passed on 2.12.2003 imposing a penal!) of 20% cut in pension for a period of three years. Questioning the same, the applicant approached the Tribunal, contending that the charge memo has been issued on 1.7.1998 for the incident which took place in the year 1993 and the delay in issuing the charge memo was not explained by the respondents. There is discrimination in imposing the penalty among the applicant and other delinquent officials as the other delinquent officials were imposed a penalty of censure and the applicant was imposed a punishment of 20% cut in the pension, which is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is further contended that when the joint enquiry was conducted, the disciplinary author-it) referred the matter to the U.P.S.C, but the advice of the U.P.S.C. was served on the applicant only along with the impugned order, which is arbitrary and illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, accepting all the three contentions, allowed the original application filed by the applicant and quashed the impugned order dated 2.12.2003. Questioning the same, present writ petition has been tiled.

4. Even at the time of admission. Mr. Vijay Shankar. took notice for the second respondent and was willing to argue the matter in support of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, we heard Mr. R. Santhanam. learned Senior Central Government standing counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vijay Shankar for the second respondent.

5. Mr. R. Santhanam, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, after taking us through the order of the Tribunal would contend that all the reasons assigned h the Tribunal for quashing the punishment, namely, 20% cut in pension cannot be sustained. According to him. the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that non-supply of copy of U.P.S.C. advice before punishment being inflicted is opposed to principles of natural justice. Art.320 (3)(c) of the Constitution enables the Government of India or Government of a State to get an advice from the Union and the State Public Service Commission respectively before inflicting any punishment. It is also relevant to note that after 42nd Amendment and after insertion of proviso to Clause (2) of Art.311. there is no obligation to provide opportunity of being heard in respect of charges alter enquiry and before imposition of penalty. It is also relevant to refer Rule 17 of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules. 17 of the Rules speaks about communication of orders. As per that provision, orders made by the disciplinary authority shall he communicated to the Government servant, who shall also be served with each article of charge and statement of findings of the discipli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document