UNION OF INDIA Vs. TEJ RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent who was working as a Superintendent, Land and Development office was served upon a major penalty chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for alleged irregularity in a case which resulted into imposition of a penalty of 5% cut in his pension for a period of 10 years which was assailed by him by filing an Original Application being O.A No.2247/2008 titled Tej Ram v. Union of India which was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench by order dated 29th May, 2009 which is challenged by the petitioner, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE Tribunal while quashing the order of punishment noted that the finding of the enquiry officer that the respondent had verbally informed to Deputy, Land and Development officer about non availability and non contactability of the Government counsel, Ms.Sudha Srivastava, who had to be changed later on which had resulted into not furnishing the relevant brief to her, had not been considered. The Tribunal also noted that the enquiry officer assessed the contributory negligence not to be less than 10% in relation to entire negligence without any yardstick and basis. The disciplinary authority also imposed the punishment without recording the finding of either 'grave misconduct' or 'grave negligence'. It was also considered that the advice of UPSC is also without any reasons about the grave misconduct when the enquiry officer has not doubted the intimation sent by the respondent to Land and Building Department himself and through his assistant Shri Dal Chand. In the circumstances it was held that the condition precedent under Rule 9 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was not met and therefore relying on State of Bihar Vs Mohd Idris Ansari, : AIR 1995 SC 1853 and Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand & ors,, 2008 (2) SCT 517 it has been held that the order passed is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law.

(3.) THE Tribunal also noted that the order dated 18th October, 2007 is not a speaking order and is based on the advice of the UPSC and the copy of the advice of the UPSC was also not furnished to the respondent. Though it has been established that the respondent had communicated about the development of the case and the fact that the Government counsel had not intimated about the state of the case and the next date of hearing and she was not contactable and had also instructed his subordinate Dal Chand, the lapse on the part of the Government counsel who ultimately had to be changed and another counsel was engaged, cannot be imputed to the respondent. It has been held that in the circumstances it is apparent that the inference of misconduct is not made out either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority except stating that the respondent is liable for the misconduct.