Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1267
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member, Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member
K. K. Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA 350/1405/2021|MA 350/855/2024
For the Applicant: A.K. Manna
For the Respondents: A. Maity
Inordinate delay, procedural violation in CVC consultation without representation, and failure to obtain mandatory UPSC advice under CCS (Pension) Rules vitiate disciplinary proceedings imposing pension cut on retired officer.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19; CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14; CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 9(1); Article 320(3)(c) of Constitution; CVC Circular dated 23.05.2000 - Disciplinary proceedings against retired officer - Penalty of 30% cut in pension and gratuity imposed after inordinate delay of 19 years from alleged misconduct - Inquiry Officer held charges not proved - Second stage CVC advice obtained without charged officer’s representation on inquiry report and disagreement note - UPSC advice not obtained before imposing pension cut despite mandatory proviso to Rule 9(1) - Proceedings quashed from stage of CVC advice; punishment order set aside; recoveries to be refunded with directions not to implement. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 16, 18)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay - Mere delay does not vitiate but inordinate unexplained delay causing prejudice warrants interference. (Para 12)
(C) Judicial Review - Limited to compliance with natural justice, statutory rules, evidence basis, perversity and proportionality; not re-appreciation of evidence. (Paras 17)
Facts of the case:
Retired officer charged for misconduct in 2002; charge memo issued in 2005; inquiry concluded in 2009 holding charges not proved; disagreement note and CVC second stage advice in 2011 without officer’s representation; representation made in 2012; UPSC papers returned due to deficiencies in 2020; penalty imposed in 2021 reducing pension and gratuity by 30%.
Findings of Court:
Disciplinary proceedings vitiated by inordinate delay causing prejudice, procedural violation in obtaining CVC advice sans representation, and non-obtention of mandatory UPSC advice under Rule 9(1).
Issues: Whether inordinate delay, premature CVC consultation without representation, and non-consultation with UPSC render disciplinary proceedings and pension cut order invalid.
Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate unexplained delay of 19 years prejudices charged officer warranting quashing; CVC circular requires charged officer’s representation before second stage advice; Rule 9(1) mandates UPSC consultation for pension cut, non-compliance vitiates proceedings despite attempted reference returned for deficiencies.
Result: OA and MA allowed; proceedings quashed from CVC advice stage; punishment order set aside; no effect to be given; recoveries refunded within 90 days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's service history and reliefs sought (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's grounds: delay and procedural violations (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents defend delay, upsc non-consultation (Para 4) |
| 4. rejoinder: upsc consultation mandatory under pension rules (Para 5) |
| 5. timeline summary and key dispute points (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. inordinate delay vitiates proceedings if prejudicial (Para 12) |
| 7. cvc advice requires prior co representation (Para 13) |
| 8. mandatory upsc consultation for pension cut (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 9. judicial review scope in disciplinary matters (Para 17) |
| 10. proceedings quashed; recoveries refunded (Para 18 , 19) |
O R D E R
Per Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):
“(a) An order holding that the impugned order dated 17.06.2021 imposing penalty of 30% cut in pension & gratuity, being violative of CVC Circular dated 23.05.2000 and 1st proviso of Rule 9(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is not maintainable and liable to be quashed.
(b) An order holding that the applicant is entitled to continue with full pension on regular basis and also full gratuity wrongly withheld by the respondent authorities.
(c) An order quashing the imposition of penalty under Rule 9(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by way of 30% cut in pension and gratuity of the applicant herein, as made in the impugned order dated 17.06.2021.
(d) An order issuing directions upon the respondent authorities to grant full pension to the applicant on regular basis instead of provisional pension as paid hitherto and grant 100% gratuity, as withheld till date along with interest, as admissible.
(e) An order directing the respondent authorities to provide production of relevant documents.
(f) Any other order or further order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”
2. The applicant joined as Appraiser Group “B” in Customs House in Kolkata in April, 1972 on selection by Union Public Service Commission through the Civil Service Examination, 1970. He was promoted as Assistant Commissioner with effect from 01.01.1986 and subsequently promoted as Joint Commissioner with effect from 01.04.1988 and as Additional Commissioner (NFSG) with effect from 01.01.1999. He retired from service on superannuation on 31.07.2008. The applicant was served with a charge memo dated 20.05.2005 while he was working as Additional Commissioner of Central Excise at Salem by the 1st respondent for the incident that had taken place on 27.11.2002 while he was at Kolkata Customs. Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry proceedings under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and went on to conclude that “both the articles of charges against Sh. K. K. Pradhan, Charged Officer are not proved” vide his Inquiry Report dated 22.12.2009. The Inquiry Report dated 22.12.2009 was served upon the applicant along with Competent Authority’s Tentative Reasons of Disagreement Note and CVC’s 2nd stage advice vide O.M. dated 04.10.2011 vide letter dated 14.03.2012. The applicant made a written representation to the Disciplinary Authority on 29.05.2012. The applicant states that due to inordinate delay in passing final order arising out of the Charge Memorandum dated 20.05.2005, the applicant was compelled to move before CAT, Chennai Bench by filing O.A. No. 310/00979/2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.06.2017 with direction to consider and dispose of the said representation within a period of three months. By the impugned order dated 17.06.2021, the Disciplinary Authority punished the applicant by imposing a cut of 30% in his pension. Hence this O.A.
3. The applicant has challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the following grounds:
I. The factum of Charge Memorandum, being issued on 20.05.2005, and the impugned final order imposing penalty being on 17.06.2021 made the former not maintainable.
II. I.O’s report
