Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 299
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member, Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
ADHIP CHANDRA CHAUDHURI – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. 350/1342/2015
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: R.14, R.15, R.3(1)(i), R.3(1)(ii), R.3(1)(iii)
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972: R.9
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964: R.3(1)(i), R.3(1)(ii), R.3(1)(iii)
Constitution of India: Art.300A, Art.14, Art.16, Art.320(3)(c)
Income Tax Act, 1961: S.127, S.132B
UPSC (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1958: Reg.5(1)
CrPC: S.164
Headnote
(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Scope of judicial review - Tribunal not to interfere with factual findings of Disciplinary Authority unless wholly perverse, no evidence, or violative of natural justice - Penalty adequacy not justiciable if lawfully imposed on proved misconduct. (Paras 15, 16)
(C) Departmental and criminal proceedings - Can proceed simultaneously; acquittal in criminal case no bar to disciplinary action; distinct standards of proof apply. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Retired Commissioner challenged charge memo issued pre-retirement during suspension and punishment order imposing withholding of 50% monthly pension and gratuity permanently for alleged misconduct of extending illegitimate favours to scam accused during 1994-1996 posting, including transfer of assessment records and release of seized assets. Inquiry held charge proved; UPSC recommended penalty; concurrent criminal cases pending with convictions in some, acquittals in others.
Findings of Court:
Charges proved based on preponderance of probabilities; no procedural irregularities; Disciplinary Authority's order detailed and reasoned; punishment commensurate with gravity of misconduct; no legal infirmity warranting interference.
Issues: Validity of charge memo and punishment; procedural lapses in inquiry; proportionality of penalty; independence of departmental proceedings from criminal cases; application of mind by Disciplinary Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal refrains from interfering in disciplinary findings unless perverse or without evidence; departmental proceedings follow preponderance of probabilities; simultaneous with criminal trials permissible; punishment not disproportionate for grave misconduct.
Result: Original Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
For the Applicant: Mr. B.R. Das, Mr. K.K. Ghosh
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Paul, Mr. A.K. Chattopadhyay
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant challenges pension and gratuity withholding post-disciplinary inquiry. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's arguments: vague charges, no government loss, disproportionate penalty. (Para 3 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. respondents defend: charges proved, grave misconduct, upsc/cvc advice followed. (Para 4 , 5 , 9) |
| 4. tribunal upholds inquiry: simultaneous proceedings valid, punishment proportionate. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. oa dismissed; no interference warranted. (Para 17) |
O R D E R
Per Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s) highlighting the facts of the case:
“i) Rescind, recall, withdraw and/or cancel or quash the charge memo dated 23.09.2004 and punishment order being Annexure-Al insofar as it directs:
(a) Withholding of 50% of monthly pension otherwise admissible on a permanent basis.
(b) Withholding of gratuity admissible on a permanent basis.
ii) Pay all the arrears in pension with effect from the date of retirement on 01.10.2004 (FN).
iii) Release the gratuity as admissible with appropriate interest thereupon. AND
iv) Certify that transmit the entire records and papers pertaining to the applicant's case so that after the cause shown thereof conscionable justice may be done unto the applicant by way of grant of reliefs as prayed for in (i) and (iii), above.
iv) Pass such other order/orders and/or direction/directions as deemed fit and proper.
v) Costs.”
2. The applicant was posted as Commissioner of Income Tax at Ranchi during the period 1994 to 1996. He was suspended w.e.f. 11.06.1997 on the ground of being in custody. The applicant was served with a charge-sheet dated 23.09.2004 under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 prior to his retirement on 30.09.2004 while he was under continued suspension. After inquiry, the CVC gave its opinion in the matter on 28.05.2010 on the basis of the inquiry report dated 30.11.2009 holding the charge as proved. The matter was referred to the UPSC for their statutory advice and the UPSC observed the charges as established and recommended a penalty of withholding gratuity and 50% of monthly pension otherwise admissible to the petitioner on a permanent basis. The disciplinary authority passed an order dated 22.06.2015 under Rule-9 of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 read with Rule-15 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 imposing the penalty as advised by the UPSC. The applicant has filed this O.A. challenging the charge memorandum dated 23.09.2004 and the Disciplinary Authority’s order of punishment dated 22.06.2015.
3. The applicant has challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds as stated in his O.A:
I. The acts of the Respondent authorities in being instrumental to impose severe penalties by causing Rule-9 of CCS(CCA) Pension Rules to be invoked is arbitrary and opposed to the established principles of fair play and justice.
II. The Respondent authorities acted in colourable exercise of jurisdiction by causing an order for withholding of 50% of pension and the entire gratuity on a permanent basis when the facts remain that the petitioner was not found guilty of grave misconduct and/or negligence during his service period causing any loss for the IT Department.
III. The disciplinary authority acted with a closed mind, if not under influence from the investigating agency as well as the advising agency. particularly when the entire case was based against the petitioner upon conjectures and surmises treating the applicant at par with the so-called scamsters under employment of the Government of Bihar and purportedly dealing with the funds of a Department of the State Government unscrupulously.
IV. Both the UPSC and the disciplinary authority acted with material irregularity inasmuch as they did not sift the evidence adduced in the disciplinary proceedings conducted on behalf of the CVC particularly when none of the witnesses examined by
