UOI Vs. B.N. MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal) in O.A. No.2339/2004 the petitioner had challenged the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 09.07.2004 whereby he had been awarded the punishment of 100% cut on pension on permanent basis along with forfeiture of the entire gratuity amount.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a Charge Memo on 14.12.1999 containing three articles of charge. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated and continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.11.2001 whereby he had held that none of the articles of charge were proved against the respondent. Thereafter the second stage CVC advice dated 27.05.2003 was obtained. By a letter dated 18.06.2003 the grounds of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority were communicated to the respondent. On 04.07.2003, the objections/representations of the respondent were furnished insofar as the disagreement notice was concerned. Thereafter, the UPSC advice was rendered on 22.04.2004 and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 09.07.2004 imposing 100% cut in pension permanently and also entailing forfeiture of the entire gratuity amount. Since the President was the Disciplinary Authority, there was no provision of appeal and consequently, the respondent filed the said O.A. No.2339/2004 before the Tribunal challenging the said order dated 09.07.2004.

(3.) THE original file has been produced before this Court. On going through the original file, it appears prima facie that there the reasons exist on the file though they have not been communicated to the respondent. At this juncture, Mr Khurana submitted that as this file had not been placed before the Tribunal, it would be appropriate if the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal, which may examine this file and then pass appropriate orders.