ORDER

PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:

a. Quash the orders bearing i. F.No. SAI/Pers./1545/98/91, dated

19.05.2020(Annexure-A1), passed by Director General, SAI, New Delhi, Respondent No.2 wherein charge sheet has been issued against the applicant and an enquiry is proposed to be held on the charges set out in the statement of articles of charges.

ii. F.No. SAI/Pers./1545/98 (Pt.II), dated 23.06.2020, (Annexure-A3) passed by Director General, SAI, New Delhi(R2) wherein Sh. Rajeev Sareen, Deputy Director has been appointed as Presenting Officer in the proposed enquiry.

iii. F.No.SAI/Pers./1545/98 (Pt.II), dated

23.06.2020(Annexure-A4) passed by Director General, SAI, New Delhi(R2) vide which DG has appointed Sh.

Pradeep Kumar Khullar, Regional Director, Min. of Textiles as Inquiry Officer to inquire in to the charges framed against the applicant.

b. Direct the respondents to cause release of Pension Payment Order(PPO) forthwith.

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings are as follows:

a. The applicant was appointed as Junior Accounts Officer in Sports Authority of India(SAI) on 12.02.1990. He retired on superannuation w.e.f. 31.05.2020 while working as Deputy Director Finance at SAI, Bengaluru Office under respondent No.4.

b. A charge memo was issued to the applicant on 19.05.2020 under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 by respondent No.2 levelling the following two charges:

The applicant being a DDO of NSSC SAI Bengaluru failed to discharge his basic responsibility to remit professional tax and TDS deducted from the employees.

The applicant as a DDO provisionally settled the LTC of claims of Venkateshwar Reddy then Director SAI Bengaluru and Dr. P. Mujumdar SSO even though they booked air tickets through an agency not approved by the Government.

c. The applicant has submitted his written statement on 23.05.2020 denying both the charges.

d. Respondent No.2 (Disciplinary Authority) has appointed Sri Rajeev Sareen, Dy. Director, as a Presenting Officer(PO) and Sri Pradeep Kumar Khullar, Regional Director(Retired) of Min. of Textiles, as an Inquiry Officer (IO) on 23.06.2020 to enquire into the charges framed against the applicant.

e. The applicant was under the belief that the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the explanation offered by him in the written statement. On account of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the authority, his terminal benefits are blocked except for provisional monthly pension released to the applicant.

f. The contention of the applicant is that this has been done with ulterior motive by the respondents since in his service career, he had been exercising his right to seek legal remedies whenever necessary. This might have caused irritation to the Headquarters and in retaliation this disciplinary proceeding is initiated against him just before his retirement.

g. The previous litigations initiated by the applicant before this Tribunal are as follows:

i. OA.Nos.367/2004, 63/2006, 151/2009& OA 1130/2014 have been filed by the applicant before this Tribunal in respect of grievance pertaining to non-grant of MACP benefits when due. In the end, in OA.1130/2014, his MACP claim is entertained and settled to his satisfaction by the administration.

ii. In another OA.No.1502/2014, the applicant challenged his transfer order to Kolkata. On promotion when he was sent to Kolkata, though his above OA was not entertained by this Tribunal, Headquarters, however, subsequently reposted him to Bengaluru from Kolkata. In spite of this, the controlling authority at Kolkata office was not ready to relieve the applicant even after repeated requests. Left with no other alternative, he filed another OA.No.466/2018 before this Tribunal which inte