WP(C) 6735, 6736, 8121/2011 Page 1 of 19

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

W.P.(C) 6735/2011

UNION OF INDIA

..... Petitioner

Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.A.S.Singh,

Advocates.

versus

UMESH NANDA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Represented by: Mr.Rohit Sharma and Mr.Amarjeet

Singh, Advocates for R-1.

Mr.Yashpal Rangi and Mr.Manjit Singh, Advocates

for R-2.

AND

W.P.(C) 6736/2011

UNION OF INDIA

..... Petitioner

Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.A.S.Singh,

Advocates.

versus

UMESH NANDA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Represented by: Mr.Rohit Sharma and Mr.Amarjeet

Singh, Advocates for R-1.

Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Advocate for R-2.

AND

W.P.(C) 8121/2011

STATE OF HARYANA REPRESENTED

BY: ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

.... Petitioner

Represented by: Mr.Yashpal Rangi, Advocate.

Versus

UMESH NANDA AND ANR

..... Respondents

2013:DHC:1587-DB

WP(C) 6735, 6736, 8121/2011 Page 2 of 19

Represented by: Mr.Rohit Sharma and Mr.Amarjeet

Singh, Advocates for R-1.

Mr.R.V.Sinha and Mr.A.S.Singh, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1.

Since the impugned order dated April 05, 2011 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal has disposed of two Original Applications

No.1328/2009 and 2339/2010, we would be proceeding to note the relevant

facts, which to some extent are intermingled within the two Original

Applications; and this is the reason why the Central Administrative

Tribunal has disposed of two Original Applications by a singular order

which is conceptually dual in nature.

2.

Vide order dated April 21, 2004 passed by the competent authority,

penalty of reducing pay of respondent No.1, Umesh Nanda, by three stages

for a period of two years with cumulative effect containing a direction that

respondent No.1 would not earn increments during the period of reduction

was imposed. The order also directs recovery of a sum of `1,89,476/-

together with interest @ 10% per annum from the date said sum was paid

from out of the funds of Haryana Institute of Public Administration to the

Union of India till realization. Appeal filed against order was rejected by

the appellate authority i.e. the Central Government vide order dated January

07, 2005. Memorial filed by respondent No.1 on March 06, 2006 being

decided by the President of India on June 21, 2010 pertaining to the penalty,

vide O.A.No.2339/2010, the respondent No.1 laid a challenge to the order

imposing penalty, order rejecting the appeal as also the order rejecting the

2013:DHC:1587-DB

WP(C) 6735, 6736, 8121/2011 Page 3 of 19

memorial. But before the memorial could be decided by the President,

since respondent No.1 was compulsorily retired from service vide order

dated April 12, 2007, exercising power under Rule 16(3) of All India

Services (DCRG) Rules, 1958 (akin to FR 56(j)) and against which order

memorial filed was rejected on May 05,2008, she laid a challenge to said

orders vide O.A.No.1328/2009. It was during hearing of said Original

Application that the Tribunal realize that penalty imposed would impact

the compulsory retirement and hence passed an order requiring the

Presidential Memorial to be decided and only thereafter order dated June

21, 2010 was passed. And this explains the order compulsorily retiring

respondent No.1 being challenged before she laid a challenge to the penalty

order.

3.

Since the Union of India and State of Haryana are the writ petitioners

before us, it is apparent that respondent No.1 has succeeded before the

Tribunal.

4.

The r