Acquittal in criminal case warrants reconsideration of harsh pension forfeiture in disciplinary proceedings for proportionality and procedural fairness.

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

“(a) to call for records pertaining to the issue of impugned order No. F.3/8/2010-S1 dt. 16-3-2011(Annexure-IV) of the 3a Respondent and impugned Order No. C- 14016/10/2007-VP dt. 25-4-2011(Annexure-V) of the 1st Respondent imposing the punishment of withholding of 100% pension admissible to the applicant and forfeiture of the pensionary benefits including gratuity amount on permanent basis, as advised by the 3rd Respondent and set aside the impugned orders dt. 16-3-2011and 25- 4-2011 of the 3rd and 1st Respondents, and declare the same as arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, duly setting aside the punishment imposed on the applicant; and

(b) to direct the Respondents to release the Pension and pensionary benefits as otherwise admissible to the applicant in full with all the consequential benefits, with interest @ 12% p.a. thereon. And be pleased to pass such other and further order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was initially appointed as Postal Clerk with effect from 18-7-1965. He had appeared for Merit examination of Inspector of Post Offices during the year 1980 as a direct recruit and was successful in the examination and was appointed as such with effect from 23-9- 1981. Basing on the service and seniority, the applicant was promoted further to the cadre of Asst. Supdt. of Post offices with effect from 23-11-1993. On attaining the age of superannuation, the applicant retired from service while working as Asst.Supdt. RMS Z-Dn. Hyderabad w.e.f. 30-9-2005.

3. It is the case of the applicant that a trap was laid by CBI on a fake complaint given by one Sri M. Chandra Sekhar, who while working as ED/Stamp Vendor, Suryapet HPD, was removed on the basis of the report submitted by the applicant being Inquiry Officer in the said Inquiry. Later on, the said Sri M. Chandra Sekhar was directed to be reinstated as the penalty of removal was found to be harsh. On the perception that the applicant did not issue the reinstatement order, the said Sri M. Chandra Sekhar was not in a good terms with the applicant. Accordingly, he gave a fake complaint with the CBI that the applicant had demanded bribe of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to issue the reinstatement order and in the Trap laid on 11.10.2000 by the CBI for conducting chemical tests and trap report was submitted behind the back of the applicant. CBI filed FIR on the basis of the fictional allegations and the same registered as CC No.18/2001. Based on the said FIR, the 6^th respondent issued a charge memo dated 17.05.2001 under Rule14 of CSS(CCA) Rules, 1965 for the very charge demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.3000/- as illegal gratification from Sri Chandra Sekhar in connection with his reinstatement into service. After due inquiry, the IO held the charge as proved vide report dated 11.12.2006, to which, the applicant submitted his representation dated 10.06.2007. In the meanwhile, CBI Court, vide Judgement dated 28.02.2006 sentenced the applicant to one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). Challenging the said judgement, the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No.71/2007 before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein vide order dated 23.01.2007, interi