Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6063
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M., Rajveer Singh Verma, J
Shri Vijay Kumar Roy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment – Respondent
OA/050/00208/2021 | MA/050/00223/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Deo Prakash Singh
For the Respondents: Shri R.R. Singh, ASC for UOI, Shri A.K. Lal
Disciplinary proceedings initiated after the statutory time limit and without evidence are unsustainable, violating principles of natural justice.
Headnote:(A) EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 - Rule 10; CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) - Disciplinary proceedings initiated against applicant after 10 years, barred under Rule 9; Major penalty imposed despite charges being ‘Not Proved’ - Court found no evidence to justify penalty, quashing the order and directing release of full pension. (Paras 2, 7, 9)
(B) Natural Justice - Evidence from preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry without opportunity for cross-examination. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged a disciplinary order imposing a penalty of 5% cut in pension after a long delay, arguing it was unjustified as the charges were not proved and the proceedings were initiated beyond the permissible time limit.
Findings of Court:
The disciplinary authority's actions were found to lack evidence and violated principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of initiating proceedings after a significant delay and the validity of imposing a penalty without substantiating evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that disciplinary proceedings initiated after the stipulated time frame and without evidence are unsustainable, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.
Result: OA allowed; impugned order quashed, full pension to be released.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's request for relief and factual background. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding disciplinary proceedings and penalties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on the case and evidence. (Para 8) |
| 4. court's decision to quash the impugned order. (Para 9) |
ORDER
Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M. :- Instant OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
“(i) Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned order No. –C-11016/29/2016 dated 10.04.2018 issued on 25.10.2019 through APFC, Regional Office, Patna received by the Applicant on 22.11.2019 ab-initio;
(ii) May graciously be further pleased to compensate the Applicant for the damage of pension with appreciation;
(iii) May graciously be pleased to issue further directions to the Respondents to set right the service records of the Applicant;
(iv) May graciously be pleased to compensate the Applicant for the mental agony suffered due to the impugned unlawful order;
(v) May graciously be pleased to pass such order/or/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”
2. The facts of the case, narrated by the applicant, are as follows:-
(i) A memorandum dated 08.04.2015 (Annexure-1) was issued to the applicant, who is posted as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (the then Enforcement Officer) under which an inquiry was proposed to be held against the applicant under Rule 10 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971. The said disciplinary proceeding was initiated after 10 years of the event, i.e. the official assignment issued on 03.01.2005 and just before 8 months of retirement on 31.01.2016 which, according to the applicant, is barred under Rule 9 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.
(ii) Applicant has been imposed with ‘’recordable warning” as per RTI information received on 11.05.2015. Despite the observation of recordable warning a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated by respondent no. 2. Inquiry was conducted on 30.10.2015 in which none of the article of charges levelled against the applicant has been proved.
(iii) On retirement of the applicant on 31.01.2016 the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant under Rule 10 of the EPS Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 has been converted into the proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 in contravention of Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 for the event which took place 10 years before such institution whereas the Rule clearly prohibits initiation of any disciplinary proceeding beyond 4 years of the event that occurred before retirement.
(iv) Despite the report of articles of charges “Not Proved” by the Inquiry Officer, the respondents imposed major penalty on the applicant, i.e. “5% cut in pension for a period of one year” under Rule 9 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 vide order dated 10.04.2018 issued on 25.10.2019.The impugned order dated 25.10.2019 was received by the applicant on 22.11.2019.
(v) The applicant has explained the grounds of the relief in para 5 of the OA by highlighting the relevant rules and various judicial pronouncements to suggest as to why the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the OA.
3. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, i.e. EPFO wherein a preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the point of limitation. It is submitted by the respondents that the recordable warning was made in the noting of the file which are not decisions and therefore the applicant cannot take any benefit of the noting on the file. However, on the basis of a complaint dated 19.10.2010 the coverage file of the establishment M/S Jaya PrabhaMahilaVikas Kendra was scrutinized and the CPFC being the competent authority had taken a view to initiate major penalty proceeding under Rule -10 of the EPC Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 against Shri Deepak Tigga, APFC and recordable warning to the applicant along with other the then EOs. The CVC vide their OM dated 24.06.2014 advise
