ORDER

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):

“8.1. to allow the present Application; 8.2. to quash and set aside the impugned Order of Penalty dated 19.01.2021 [Annexure: A-1];

8.3. to quash and set aside the impugned Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 31.08.2015 [Annexure: A-2]; or alternatively;

8.4. declare that the impugned Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 31.08.2015 [Annexure: A-2] has lapsed;

8.5. to quash and set aside the impugned Disagreement Note dated 23.07.2018 [Annexure: A-3]; 8.6. to consequently direct the Respondent to grant all consequential benefits to the Applicant, including opening of the Sealed Cover and grant of promotion if the Applicant has been found fit therein, and payment of retiral benefits not paid due to the pending Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 31.08.2015 [Annexure: A-2];

8.7. and as a consequence thereto, direct the Respondent Ministry to pay compound interest @18% per annum, compounded annually, on the dues payable from the date they were payable, till the payment is made by the Respondent;

8.8. to issue any such and further orders/directions this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and

8.9. to allow exemplary costs of the application to the Applicant.”

2. Applicant was served with a charge memorandum dated 31.08.2015. The charges contained in the said memorandum related to his tenure as Director, Central Board for Workers’ Education during the period 2005-07. The applicant made a representation against the charge memorandum on 14.10.2015. An inquiry was conducted and the inquiry report was submitted on 16.01.2017 holding that none of the charges against the applicant was proved. This report was supplied to the applicant on 27.03.2017 with the remark that the Disciplinary Authority had accepted the inquiry report. Subsequently, a disagreement note was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 23.07.2018 on the basis of 2^nd Stage advice of the CVC. Applicant made a representation against the Disciplinary Authority’s disagreement note on 11.08.2018. The case was referred to the UPSC for their advice. UPSC gave its advice recommending a penalty of 15% pension cut for 3 years. After considering the UPSC advice and the applicant’s representation against the advice, the Disciplinary Authority issued a punishment order on 19.01.2021 directing a cut of 15% on the applicant’s pension for a period of three years. This O.A. has been filed challenging the entire disciplinary proceedings against the applicant including the charge memorandum dated 31.08.2015 and the Disciplinary Authority’s final order dated 19.01.2021 imposing the punishment upon the applicant.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits the following:

3.1. The Charge Sheet has not been approved by the Competent Authority, making it bad and non-est in law.

3.2. The Charge Sheet is based on no evidence whatsoever.

3.3. The Inquiring Authority was appointed without considering the Reply of the Charged Officer to the Charge Sheet.

3.4. The Disciplinary Proceeding is bad in law due to Undue Delay, both in initiation of the proceedings, and the continuation thereof.

3.5. The Charge Sheet is factually incorrect.

3.6. The Charge Sheet has to lapse, as five years has passed since the issuance of the Charge Sheet, but the Disciplinary Proceedings has not come to an end.

3.7. The past practice in the Union Government makes the fifth Article of the Charge Sheet non-est in law.

3.8. There is no finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the alleged misconduct is grave misconduct.

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents makes the following submissions:

4.1. After getting approval of Hon'ble Minister, a copy of the Inquiry Report dated 16.01.2017 was provided to the applicant vide Memorandum dated 27.3.2017 and the applicant was provided with an opportunity to submit written repr