Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. R. N. Singh, J, Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, A
Shri P.L. Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 2926/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Padma Kr. S
For the Respondents: Mr. R K Sharma
The imposition of a penalty on a retired official requires demonstrable grave misconduct; failure to prove this renders such sanctions invalid, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness in administrative inquiries.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Penalty imposition on retired official for withholding of pension due to alleged misconduct related to recovery suit - The applicant challenged the penalty of withholding 20% of monthly pension for 4 years, asserting it resulted from a misinterpretation of legal duties and vague charges. Importantly, no actual financial loss to the government was shown, and the delay in suit filing was attributed to governmental restructuring and lack of directives from superiors. The court underscored the necessity of substantive misconduct for such penalties and emphasized the need for fair inquiry processes, particularly compliance with CCS (CCA) Rules. It found the Inquiry Officer failed to fully adhere to procedural requirements by not properly questioning the applicant regarding evidence against him. (Paras 3, 6, 10, 15, 18, 34)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, previously a Superintending Engineer, faced a penalty for allegedly allowing financial advantage to a contractor due to delayed action in filing a recovery suit for significant dues. However, the suit was acknowledged to have been initiated after completion of contract obligations.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal ruled the penalty imposed was not justified as the applicant was not shown to have acted with grave misconduct and affirmed that appropriate action should only be determined after a thorough and fair inquiry process.
Issues: The primary legal questions included whether the penalty for withholding pension was legitimate given the applicant's assertion of no misconduct and the ambiguous nature of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal highlighted that wrongful penalties require proofs of deliberate misconduct and that procedural fairness necessitates compliance with inquiry protocols. The absence of definitive evidence of misconduct rendered the imposed penalty invalid.
Result: The OA is allowed; the impugned penalty order is quashed and pension withheld is to be released with interest.
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present OA filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in Para 8 of the OA, has prayed for the following reliefs: -
“(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated27.6.2017 with all consequential benefits.
(b) Direct the respondents to release the withheld amount of pension with interest thereon.
(c) Grant the applicant cost of litigation, it being a fit case for grant of litigation cost.
(d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased grant under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The undisputed facts which are apparent from the pleadings available on record are that the applicant is aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary imposition of penalty on him vide order dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure-A/1). He further submits that he is now retired from service and is aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty of withholding of 20% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to him for a period of 04 years. It is further stated that this penalty has been imposed on the allegation that the applicant has not initiated the case for filing a Recovery Suit against a contractor within the limitation period and therefore, caused loss to the government. He further states that there was a perceptional difference in the case of period of limitation for the Government to file suit for recovery. While one Chief Engineer assumed that the period of limitation was 3 years while another Chief Engineer correctly stated later that the Limitation Period for the Government to file Suit for Recovery is 30 years. Ultimately, the suit has since been admitted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and is still pending adjudication. Therefore, this presumption resulted in the initiation of charge memo against the applicant and imposition of withholding of 20% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to him for a period of 04 years. It is further submitted that the imposition of cut in pension can only be done if there is grave misconduct/grave negligence. In the present case, there is neither the recovery suit was barred by limitation nor the loss actually occurred.
3. The applicant has placed reliance on the order/judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI Vs. J. Ahmed (AIR 1979) SC 1022 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive, acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct.
4. The applicant further states that the charge memo is vague and not on the basis of any actual fact. The charge memo is based on a presumption that the applicant allowed financial advantage to the contractor, given undue favour to the contractor, indulged himself in the adverse action against the department and which would have resulted in huge loss to the Government. It is apparent from the pleadings that the recovery suit is still pending with the Hon’ble High Court and what loss has been caused to the department is yet to be ascertained.
5. The applicant also mentions that he neither had mala fide intention nor had any knowledge about providing any financial benefit to the contractor. He claims that the Disciplinary Authority without any application of mind recorded in the penalty order that considering the circumstances in totality and an objective assessment of the entire case, the President has accepted the advice tendered by the UPSC and accordingly, hereby imposed penalty of withholding of 20% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the applicant for a period of 4 years.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the respondents, the applicant approached this Tribunal by way of the present OA.
7.Counter reply has been filed by the respondents on25.10.2017 wherein it has been stated that the applicant during the aforesaid period and while functioning as Executive Engineer in the aforesaid office, has not initiated any action for preparing the self-contained note for filing of rec
