UNION OF INDIA Vs. V MOHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent herein had retired from service as Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise on 28.2.2001. After his retirement an order dated 26.3.2002 was passed by the President imposing penalty of 15% cut-in-monthly pension in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 9 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Aggrieved by the said order first respondent filed O.A. 332 of 2002 which was allowed by the Tribunal and the order was set aside. Aggrieved by the same this Writ Petition has been preferred by the Union of India and others.

(2.) Respondent was functioning as Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kurnool Division of Hyderabad Collectorate, while so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on various charges including the charge that while he was working as Assistant Collector during the period from 29.1.1990 to 7.1.1994 he had approved classification lists and price lists in favour of M/s. Premier Det-Chem Pvt. Ltd., manufacturing detergent cakes sought concessional rate of duty on the basis of documents. It was alleged that the respondent had failed to verify authenticity of the documents. All the four charges enquired into by the enquiry officer who had submitted a report holding that Articles I, II and III of the charges were not proved and Article IV was partly proved. President had issued a show cause notice to the respondent proposing to disagree with the finding of the enquiry officer on Article I of the charge on the ground that the respondent could have enquired and made investigation before approving the classification list and therefore he had not applied his mind properly before approving the classification list and that the enquiry officer has not appreciated the evidence properly. Respondent submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice explaining that the Range Superintendent having recommended the approval of the classification list, the same was approved as was done generally, because personal verification by the Assistant Collector was not necessary and practicable in all cases and that the clandestine manufacture of branded detergent cakes and removal not being in any way the result of the approval of the classification list, there was no scope for entering a different finding on article of charge No. 1. Disciplinary Authority, namely, the President on consideration of the Enquiry Report, the submission of the respondent and the advice of the Union Public Service Commission held that Article 1 of the charge substantially proved and Article IV of the charge partly proved. Union Public Service Commission had advised that the ends of justice would be met if a penalty of 15% cut in pension is imposed on the respondent for a period of two years. President accepted the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission and held that the respondent was substantially guilty of Article I of the charge and Article IV of the charge partly by order dated 26.3.2002 imposing on the respondent 15% cut in monthly pension.

(3.) We fully endorse the view of the Tribunal that President had not properly applied Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules while imposing 15% cut in monthly pension from the respondent after his retirement. President has mainly relied upon the recommendation of the UPSC. We may refer to the recommendation dated 30.3.2001. Relevant portion of the same reads as follows: