KESHAV GOPAL CHANDANSHIVE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai on 8th of August, 2003 in Original Application No. 101 of 2002. That application was filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 16th of August, 2001 passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, imposing the penalty of 20% cut in the monthly pension receivable by the petitioner for a period of two years. In Appeal, the Central Administrative Tribunal has by the order dated 8th of August, 2003 dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner. The facts that are material and relevant in the case are as follows :

(2.) The petitioner was in service of the Respondent No. 1 Union of India as Assistant Collector. He retired from the service on 30th April, 1993. The charge-sheet dated 27th of July, 1994 was served on him after

(3.) The first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that consultation With the UPSC under Rule 9 is mandatory and, therefore, the advice given by the UPSC has to be considered in its entirety by the disciplinary authority. He submits that though the UPSC has held that the charge number one is not proved and that the UPSC was not asked to reconsider that finding, still the disciplinary authority disregarded the findings recorded by the UPSC without discussing the observations made by the UPSC in its second opinion/advice, that the disciplinary authority did agree with the finding of the UPSC in its first advice that the charge No. 1 is not proved. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order, imposing punishment excludes from consideration this vital and material aspect of the matter and therefore, the order impugned is required to be set aside. He further submits that under Rule 9, insofar as Government servants are concerned, the punishment can be imposed only on finding that the concerned pensioner is guilty of grave misconduct. He submits that neither in the charge-sheet nor in the report of the Enquiry Officer nor in the order of the disciplinary authority, a finding has been recorded that the charges which are held to be proved against the petitioner are of grave nature. He relies in support of his submission on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D.V. Kapoor Vs. Union of India & ors., reported in 1990 (4) S.C.C. 314. The learned Counsel also made other submissions in relation to the order in question.