UNION OF INDIA Vs. S.M.PADWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Neeta U. Masurkar, learned counsel representing the Petitioners - Union of India, Ms. Neeta Karnik learned Counsel representing the Respondent in Writ Petition No.9062 of 2011, Mr. Vishal P. Shirke learned Counsel representing the Petitioner and Mrs. Shehnaz Bharucha learned Counsel representing the Respondent - Union of India in Writ Petition No.11229 of 2013.

(2.) Since the subject matter of these two Writ Petitions and the issues which arise for our consideration are intertwined, these petitions are being decided by the following common judgment and order:

(3.) Petitioner - Yashwant Balu Lotale has questioned the validity of the judgment dated 13 th June 2013 passed by the Bombay Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Original Application No.465 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal has declined to interfere with the order of penalty dtd. 31/1/2008 and has accordingly dismissed the Original Application. By the order of penalty dtd. 31/1/2008, the Petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of compulsory retirement from Government service in terms of Rule 11(vii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965). Said order further provides that the Petitioner shall be entitled to only 65% of the full compensation of pension and gratuity under Rule 40 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules.