ORAL ORDER

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

By this OA, applicant sought the following relief:

“…….to declare all the proceedings leading upto and including the proceedings under the F.No.C/14011/2/2007/V&L (P&T) dt. 26.9.18of the 1st applicant as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and by nullifying the same direct the respondents to release all the benefits withheld and due with interest at 12% p.a. on the withheld and delayed payments including gratuity, leave salary and due promotions and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had joined the service of Income Tax Department as Inspector of Income Tax in 1970 and earned promotions and retired from service on 31.08.2007 as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. During his service, he was issued a Charge Memo dt. 24.01.2007. The applicant had submitted his explanation refuting the charges. Thereupon, an inquiry Officer was appointed, who on conducting an Inquiry had submitted his report dated 18.08.2012 holding charges II and III proved and IV partly proved, whereas the Disciplinary Authority held that Article III is only proved. Later, on obtaining the applicant's representation against the reports, the matter was referred to UPSC for advice.

Thereafter, on receipt of UPSC advise dt. 8.2.2018, the applicant's comments under representation dt. 22.4.2010 and 11.5.2018 were obtained, and finally by the impugned proceedings dt. 26.9.2018, the 1^st respondent imposed the punishment of withholding 15% of the applicant's pension for a period of two years. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed present OA.

3. After Notice, respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed detailed reply opposing the relief on the ground that the applicant, during his tenure as DCIT, Circle-9 (1), Hyderabad, had committed gross irregularities in his functions as Assessing Officer and was issued a Charge Memo dated 24.01.2007. Thereafter, the applicant filed his explanation refuting the charges. Subsequently, an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who after conducting an Inquiry, vide his inquiry report dated 08.08.2012 held that the charges at Article II, III as proved. Articles I,V not proved and charges IV as partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed tentatively with the findings of the IO in respect of Articles I, III, & V and tentatively disagreed with the findings of the IO in respect of Articles II & IV of the charge holding both the Articles of charge as not proved. The Inquiry report and DA's disagreement were forwarded to applicant for making representation and after obtaining the applicant’s response against the reports, the matter was referred to the UPSC for advice. On receipt of the UPSC advice, the same was forwarded to the applicant for his comments. After receipt of the comments of the applicant, penalty order under Rule 9 of CCS (pension) Rules, 1972 in F.No. C-14011/02/2007-V&L dated 26.09.2018 was imposed withholding 15% of the applicant’s pension for a period of two years.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a fact that the applicant had passed modification orders based on the photocopies of the so called waiver orders of the CIT which itself were not legal and proper. The applicant himself raised doubts about the authenticity of these orders claimed to have been passed by the CIT, A.P.-1, Hyderabad. The applicant wrote a letter dt. 22.03.2004 to JCIT, Range-9, Hyderabad duly pointing out the peculiar features of these orders and seeking copies from office of CIT. Thus, it is clear that the applicant was not sure about the authenticity of the second set of orders for which he duly wrote a letter to JCIT for obtaining office copies of the waiver orders. However, the modification orders were passed by the applicant sometimes in July, 2004 without waiting for any respo