Post-retirement, only President can impose penalties affecting pension; subordinate authorities lack power to review or initiate de-novo proceedings.

O R D E R (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

1. In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 28.3.2017 (Annex.A/1) and order dated 15.9.2021 (Annex.A/2), declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to grant all consequential benefits including releasing the retirement benefits with interest.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants with the costs of litigation.”

2. In opposition to the claim of the applicant, the respondents have filed a short reply followed by a detailed reply and have prayed for dismissal of the O.A. The respondents have also brought on record the provisions of Rule 129 and 136 of the Postal Manual Volume III and an extract of Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

3. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have also perused the pleadings available on record.

5. The undisputed facts of the case are that departmental proceedings were initiated against the applicant for the allegations that while working as Sorting Assistant/Supervisor in the Speed Post Branch at the O/o Director, Delhi Foreign Post, New Delhi 110002, on 22.03.2014 he allegedly dispatched three EMS bags containing 675 international speed post articles to USA without custom examination in contravention to the Rule 40 read with Rule 232 of Foreign Post Manual. The articles could be detained in the office after the intervention of the police. These bags were presented for customs examination and finally dispatched to the USA on 08.05.2014, that is, after 45 days. The proceedings for major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were initiated vide memorandum dated 01.08.2014. The Inquiry Officer (IO) has found the allegations to have been partially proved. The applicant was required to submit his representation on the said report of the IO and he submitted the representation on 16.11.2014. The Disciplinary Authority inflicted the penalty of censure vide order dated 05.12.2016 which has attained finality inasmuch as the applicant did not prefer any appeal/representation and he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2016. The appellate authority, that is, the CPMG, reviewed this case and by exercising its power and by invoking the provisions of Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, set aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority vide memorandum dated 28.03.2017 and ordered for de-novo proceedings from the stage of re- submission of Inquiry Report. The case was accordingly resent to the disciplinary authority for denovo inquiry against the applicant and for the inquiry officer to submit his report. Accordingly, the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 25.09.2017 and a copy of the same was supplied to the applicant on 10.10.2017 requiring the applicant to submit his representation, if any, within 15 days making it clear that in case of default the case is to be decided ex-parte. The applicant submitted his representation on 02.11.2017 and the matter was referred to the UPSC for their statutory advise as the applicant had retired on attaining the age of superannuation and the UPSC pointed out certain def