The central legal point established is that Rule 6 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 confers the power on the Central Government to withhold/forfeit the pension/gratuity, and the court upheld the authority of the Central Government to impose the punishment.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J. - In this case, the Petitioner assails the order of the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 812 of 2002 wherein the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order of punishment passed against the Petitioner in a Departmental Proceeding by the Union of India.

2. The undisputed facts are that the Petitioner was a member of the Orissa (State) Forest Service. He was charge-sheeted in a Departmental Proceeding during October, 1987. On 9.11.1987, he was promoted and became a member of Indian Forest Service (hereinafter referred as "I.F.S.") and remained in Orissa State cadre. While continuing as an I.F.S. Officer of Orissa Cadre, the applicant submitted a written statement of defence to the charge-sheet on 09.05.1988. The State of Orissa drew an additional charge-sheet against him on 12.06.1989. The Petitioner filed his written statement of defence on 28.09.1989. On 30.06.1991, the Petitioner retired from service on superannuation. After his retirement, the Petitioner faced the enquiry and finally found guilty and the competent authority, namely the Union of India inflicted punishment of reduction of his pension by 25% and for forfeiture of the entire gratuity, as per Order Dated 31.08.2004. Such order of punishment was challenged in the Original Application before the Learned Tribunal.

3. From the impugned order it transpires that the only point that was raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner was since the applicant was a member of the All India Service, the State Government was incompetent to proceed against him departmentally and, as such, the final order of punishment, even if the same has been passed by the Government of India, is not sustainable, especially because the proceeding continued after his retirement from Government Service. Having considered the contention raised by the Petitioner, the Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration Rule 7 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred as "AIS (DA) Rules, 1969") and the provisions of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as "AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958") held that the State Government has the authority to initiate a proceeding, though the punishment in such a case shall be inflicted only by the Central Government in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred as "U.P.S.C."). Learned Tribunal further held that Rule 6 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 provides for withholding pension and gratuity and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is No. way irregular and illegal requiring any interference and accordingly, the Learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application.

4. In assailing the orders passed by the Learned Tribunal, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner primarily raised two points: it is first contended that Rule 6 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 does not authorize withholding of gratuity; secondly, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 11426 of 1994 has ordered that the Petitioner be given the retiral benefits as a special case and hence, the Learned Tribunal could not have come to a conclusion contrary to the express directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Learned Standing Counsels for the Opp. Parties, on the other hand, supported the finding of the Learned Administrative Tribunal and prayed that the Writ Petition be dismissed.

5. At page 14 of the impugned order, the Learned Tribunal has quoted Rule 6 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958, which provides for recovery from pension. It is seen that in Sub-rule (1) it is provided that the Central Government reserves to itself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both; either in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Central or a State Government, if the pensio