UNION OF INDIA Vs. UMESH NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(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 Rs. 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 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.