UNION OF INDIA Vs. SURENDER KUMAR SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners question the tenability of the order dated 02.04.2013 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No. 799/2012.

(2.) THE limited grievance raised by the petitioners is that the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that the petitioners had only amended the earlier order on compulsory retirement adding cut in entitlement in pension and gratuity of the respondent as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which was inadvertently omitted earlier by the department.

(3.) MS . Archana Gaur, Advocate counsel representing the petitioners submits that vide order dated 5th July 2005, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement upon the respondent with immediate effect but when the case of the respondent was sent to CDA for computing his pension then it was pointed out by the CDA that cases of compulsory retirement are dealt with under Rule 40(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, in the case of the respondent, the quantum of cut in the pension was not indicated therefore his matter was again processed and a fresh order dated 5.9.2011 was passed after consulting the DoPT as well as the UPSC and such an order was passed strictly in accordance with Rule 40(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and therefore, no fault or illegality can be traced with the fresh order passed by the petitioners. Though the learned Tribunal in so far as the challenge raised by the respondent to the punishment dated 5.7.2005 and Inquiry Officer's report dated 12.10.2004 agreed with him however it found the O.A. to be barred by limitation.