Back
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.4382/2015
New Delhi, this the 21st day of December, 2018
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Shri B.L. Sharma, now retired, Aged, 62 years,
S/o Late Bhiken Lal Sharma,
R/o D-16, Mansarovar Park,
Shadhara
Delhi.
...Applicant
(By advocate : Shri Rajeev Sharma)
Versus
(Through Secretary)
1.
The Lt. Governor of Delhi,
Raj Niwas,
Civil Lines,
Delhi.
2.
The Commissioner,
East Delhi Municipal Corporation,
1st Floor, 419, Udyog Sadan,
Patparganj Industrial Area,
Delhi-92.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Ruchi Chauhan for Shri Umesh
Joshi for EDMC)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman :-
The applicant was employed in erstwhile Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (for short, MCD). When he was
2
OA No.4382/2015
working as Assistant Engineer (Civil), he was issued a
charge memo dated 27.10.2008 with certain allegations.
The applicant submitted explanation, denying the
allegation.
Taking
the
same
into
account,
the
disciplinary authority passed order dated 21.11.2013,
imposing the punishment of the reduction of pay by one
stage, in the time scale, till the superannuation of the
applicant. This decision was communicated to the
applicant through order dated 22.11.2013. He retired
from service on 31.12.2013, on attaining the age of
superannuation. The applicant challenges the order of
punishment.
2. He contends that the charge itself was trivial and
the punishment is totally dis-proportionate. Another
ground prayed by the applicant is that the punishment
though would be in force for hardly one month, it would
adversely affect his pensionary benefits.
3. The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing
the OA. It is stated that the impugned order was passed
strictly, in accordance with the law, and it does not
warrant any interference.
3
OA No.4382/2015
4. We heard Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for
applicant and Ms. Ruchi Chauhan for Shri Umesh Joshi,
learned counsel for respondents.
5. The applicant was imposed the minor penalty of
reduction of pay scale by one stage to be in force till he
retires from service. The date of the order was
21.11.2013, and the date of retirement of the applicant
is 31.12.2013.
6. The apprehension of the applicant is that the
punishment of reduction of pay scale, which would
continue till he retires, may affect his pensionary
benefits. This apprehension is not well folded. The reason
is that the punishment of reduction of pay scale was not
with cumulative effect and once the applicant attains the
age of superannuation, the pay which was reduced on
account of the impugned order, gets restored to its
original position.
7. In other words, the reduction of pay scale would be
in force, as regards the pay of the applicant only for the
month of December, 2018 and on his retirement, the pay
4
OA No.4382/2015
scale, as stood before the order of punishment, stands
restored.
8. We, therefore, dispose of the OA, directing that the
last pay of the application for the purpose of fixation of
the pensionary and other retiral benefits, shall be treated
as the one which stood before the order of punishment
was passed.
9. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(K.N. Shrivastava) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Member (A) Chairman
‘rk’
