RAVI SARAN PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 04.06.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench Lucknow in Original Application No. 432 of 2002 as also the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the Tribunal in Review Application No. 66 of 2004 filed in Original Application No. 432 of 2002.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 10 October 1952, subsequently he was promoted to Lower Selection Grade S.P.M. vide order dated 18.04.1976 issued by the Director of Postal Services, Lucknow, he retired on 28.02.1990. The petitioner was chargesheeted for misconduct and negligence, after retirement the petitioner was charged with allegation that he had illegally issued a Kissan Vikas Patra and National Saving Certificates for the value of Rs.1,20,000/- in his own name without making proper entries in the official record and had raised loans of Rs.87,000/- by placing the documents with the State Bank of India, Jagdishpur Branch, District- Sultanpur and an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. He had deposited the loan amount in the Bank and got redeemed the documents. A First Information Report was also lodged against him, but since during investigation the offence could not be substantially made out against him, no further action was taken on the First Information Report and a final report was submitted by the Police. Since the allegations against the applicant were of grave nature i.e. misconduct and misuse of official position, therefore, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant under Section 9 of the C.C.A. (Pension Rules 1972) along with provisions of Rule 14 and 15 of the C.C.S. (C.C.A) Rules 1995. The charges leveled against the petitioner during the course of inquiry was found proved and accordingly on the recommendation of Union Public Service Commission the Hon'ble President passed an order dated 09.01.2002 forfeiting the entire pension of the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the order on the ground that the forfeiture of the pension was in contravention of the procedure laid down by law and the inquiry was in violation of order dated 7 July 1992 for the reason that Sri S.D. Verma, the Inquiry Officer did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry, as he was being incompetent for being appointed to the post of Superintendent. It was stated that Superintendent of Post Officer, Sultanpur was only the competent person to frame the charges against the petitioner.