2025:BHC-AS:52249-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10705 OF 2025 Union of India ] Through Sr. Divisional ] Medical Officer, ] Divisional Health Unit (Kurla) ] Mumbai Division Central Railway ] Kurla Railway Colony, Sable Nagar, ]

Maharashtra – 400 089 ] .. Petitioner Versus

1. Arun P. Attrade ]

Age 67 Occ: Retd. ] Retired Chief Pharmacist, ] Divisional Railway Hospital ] Kalyan, Mumbai Division ] Central Railway Mumbai – 421602 ]

2. The Executive Director ]

Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, ] Raisina Road, New Delhi, ] Delhi- 110 001 ]

3. The General Manager, ]

Central Railway Mumbai CSMT ] Mumbai – 400001. ]

4. The Additional Chief ]

Medical Suptt., DRH, (Kalyan) ] Mumbai Division, Central Railway ]

Kalyan (E) Maharashtra-421301 ] .. Respondents ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12271 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10705 OF 2025 Arun P. Attrade ] .. Applicant Vs.

Union of India and Others ] ..Respondents Mr. Akash K. Kotecha, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Applicant.

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 10TH OCTOBER 2025.

PER, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order and judgment dated 17^th September 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai in Original Application No.95 of

2023.

2. Respondent no.1 was appointed as a junior Pharmacist under the respondent no.4 on 8^th December 1979. During service, on 31^st July 2013, the respondent no.1 was placed under suspension and charged of having demanded and accepted illegal gratification/bribe of Rs 300/- from a decoy patient to facilitate issuance of Duty Certificate. The suspension was revoked on 29^th January 2014. Thereafter on 13^th November 2014, departmental inquiry proceedings were initiated against Respondent No.1 and a charge- sheet was issued. Respondent No.1 superannuated from service on 31^st July 2015, whilst the inquiry proceedings were still pending. The inquiry concluded in February 2016. Based on the Inquiry Officer report of 18^th March 2016 several years later in 2022, advice from the Union Public Service Commission (“UPSC”) was sought regarding the disciplinary action to be taken under Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (“Railway Rules”).

3. Respondent No.1 submitted a representation challenging the findings of the Inquiry Officer. On 11^th November 2022, after considering the UPSC’s advice and the inquiry report, the petitioner passed an order imposing the penalty of withholding 100% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to Respondent No.1 and permanently withholding his entire gratuity. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, Respondent No.1 filed Original Application No. 95 of 2023 before the Tribunal. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 17^th September 2024 allowed the Original Application and held as follows:

“I) Original Application is allowed.

II) The order of termination dated 11^th November, 2022 is set aside. The applicant shall be entitled to provisional pension from the date of termination till today and will also get the same till the final order is passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.”

4. Mr. Akash K. Kotecha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the respondent No.1 did not examine any witnesses or produce documentary evidence before the Inquiry Officer. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, under which the President is empowered to withhold the pension of a delinquent employee once misconduct is established. On this basis, it was contended that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. On the othe hand, Mr. Samir Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, supported the findings and reasoning of the Tribunal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the partie