HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Bench No.432 of 2014

04 March, 2025 Union of India and others ……….Petitioners Versus Prem Shankar Saxena ………Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Virendra Kaparuwan, learned counsel for the Union of India/Petitioners.

Mr. M. C. Pant, learned counsel for the respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Justice Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari Hon’ble Justice Shri Vivek Bharti Sharma

JUDGMENT

(per Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.07.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in Original Application No.536 of 2011. By the said judgment, punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon respondent by the Disciplinary Authority; as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, was set aside and it was held that respondent shall be deemed to be in service till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.07.2009 and he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

2. It is not in dispute that respondent was serving as a Wireman in Central Public Works Department; a charge-sheet was issued to him on 06.11.1991; respondent denied the charges and requested for a detailed inquiry; an Inquiry Officer was appointed vide letter dated 03.01.1992, the inquiry could not be completed till 2001 due to change of Inquiry Officers as well as Presenting Officers; respondent filed OA No.156 of 2001 challenging the charge-sheet and questioning the continuation of disciplinary proceedings.

3. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 09.02.2001 disposed of the said original application by directing superintending Engineer, CPWD, New Delhi to conclude disciplinary proceedings within four months. Operative portion of the order dated 09.02.2001 passed in OA No.156 of 2001 is reproduced below:-

“The O.A. is accordingly disposed of finally with the direction to the respondent no.2, superintending Engineer, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant (if already not concluded) within a period of four months from the date of copy of this order is filed. The payment of arrears claimed on revised pay scale/shall abide by the result of the enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs.”

4. It is revealed from the record that the Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry and submitted report to the Disciplinary Authority on 13.07.2001, in which charge nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were found to be proved and charge no.4 and 7 were not found to be proved. The inquiry report was supplied to the respondent and he gave representation against the inquiry report on 11.09.2001 and the Disciplinary Authority after considering representation submitted by respondent, passed the punishment order on

08.11.2001.

5. Appellant challenged the punishment order by filing an appeal, however, his appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 01.12.2010. The orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority were challenged by respondent before Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.536 of 2011. Learned Tribunal allowed the application filed by respondent challenging the punishment order and the appellate order only on the ground that the timeline fixed by the Tribunal in its order dated 09.02.2001 passed in OA No.156 of 2001 was breached, inasmuch as, the disciplinary proceedings were required to be concluded within four months as per earlier order passed by learned Tribunal, however, the punishment order was passed after expiry of four months. Relevant discussion as made in paragraph nos.11, 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment dated 14.07.2014 is extracted below:-

“11. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 06.11.1991 and concluded on 08.11.2001 (not on 10.11.2001 as stated in reply) b