Tribunals cannot interfere with disciplinary findings unless perverse or without evidence; departmental proceedings independent of criminal cases with preponderance of probabilities standard; punishment proportionate to grave misconduct upheld.

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