UNION OF INDIA Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19. 08. 2004 made in O. A. No. 55 of 2004, Ministry of Defence, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Government of India, New Delhi and the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai have preferred the above writ petition.

(2.) FOR convenience, we shall refer the parties, as arrayed before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE applicant joined service as Lower Division Clerk on 08. 01. 1962 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in 1970 and further promoted as Preventive Officer in November, 1982 and retired on superannuation on 31. 07. 2000. A charge memo dated 01. 07. 1998 was issued to the applicant on the ground of lack of devotion to duty, thereby contravening Rule 3 (1) (ii) (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (in short "the Rules" ). Along with the applicant, other Preventive Officers were also issued with charge sheet and common enquiry was held against all the delinquents, in which the applicant also participated. The Enquiry Officer's report dated 15. 04. 2002 holding that the charges proved was served on the applicant. The applicant submitted his representation to the disciplinary authority on 26. 09. 2002 and even after retirement, an enquiry was conducted and ultimately an order was passed on 2. 12. 2003 imposing a penalty of 20% cut in pension for a period of three years. Questioning the same, the applicant approached the Tribunal, contending that the charge memo has been issued on 01. 07. 1998 for the incident which took place in the year 1993 and the delay in issuing the charge memo was not explained by the respondents. There is discrimination in imposing the penalty among the applicant and other delinquent officials as the other delinquent officials were imposed a penalty of censure and the applicant was imposed a punishment of 20% cut in the pension, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further contended that when the joint enquiry conducted, the disciplinary authority referred the matter to the UPSC, but the advice of the UPSC was served on the applicant only along with the impugned order, which is arbitrary and illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, accepting all the three contentions, allowed the original application filed by the applicant and quashed the impugned order dated 02. 12. 2003. Questioning the same, present writ petition has been filed.