Pension withholding under CCS (Pension) Rule 9 requires explicit finding of grave misconduct; absent it, order quashed.

……Respondents For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel For the respondents : Ms. S.B.Das, Counsel Mr. S.B.Jena, Counsel O R D E R PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

The brief facts of the matter are that while the applicant was working as General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, was proceeded with departmentally under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum No. 8-64/2011-Vig.II dated 26.02.2014. There were 10 (ten) Articles of charge framed against him. The allegations against the applicant in the charge memorandum mainly are that the applicant had made transactions/acquired assets without giving any prior intimation/obtaining permission as required under rules thereby he acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Admittedly, on allegation of acquiring disproportionate assets, criminal cases have been registered by the CBI on 27.11.2009 u/s 13(2) r/w 13(a) (c) of P.C.Act, 1988, vide RC 49(A)/2008-Kol and RC 30(A)/2009-BBS before the appropriate court of law, which are under trial. While the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide memorandum dated

26.02.2014 was pending, the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the afternoon of 31.07.2020 and, therefore, the proceeding initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules was converted and proceeded ahead under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report holding the allegations made in Articles I to VIII [regarding not giving intimation of acquiring moveable/immovable properties entering into transactions, investing in banks, mutual funds and purchase of shares and Article of Charge X [regarding acquiring assets disproportionate to his known source of income] as “proved” and the allegation in Article IX as “not proved”. Thereafter, after following the procedure provided under rules, the Under Secretary to Govt. of India communicated the decision of the Disciplinary Authority vide order No. 8- 64/2011-Vig.II dated 26.12.2022 taken in exercise of power under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed this OA stating, inter alia, that acquiring assets without prior intimation is a procedure, and, failure to do so by an employee is a mere technical lapse and cannot attract major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965/Rule 9 proceedings under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by relying on the CVC Guidelines issued vide No. 99/VGL/69 dated 26.02.2001. It is stated that there is no evidence and/or the IO or the UPSC did not bring into record any such evidence to establish that the applicant is having disproportionate asset to his known source of income especially when the spouse and son of the applicant are income tax assesses having their own source of income. It is also stated that as to whether the applicant is having assets disproportionate to his known source of income is a complicated question of law, which are under trial in the criminal case registered by the CBI, which is under trial and, therefore, imposition of punishment in the disciplinary proceedings prior to conclusion of the criminal case is bad in law because in the event he is made scot-free on allegation of having disproportionate asset to his known source of income in the criminal case, the imposition of punishment on same allegation is bound to fall flat, which aspect was not look into by the authorities concerned while imposing the punishment. Besides that the order of punishment is unreasoned and without application of mi