G.L. METHWANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises the short question about the validity of the order of the President dated February 18, 1971, retrospectively withholding one -fourth of the pension which was already granted to the petitioner. The petitioner who was serving as a Superintendent of the Central Excise, retired from service on June 14, 1961. His pension was fixed at Rs. 190 -25. On March 20, 1963, a departmental proceeding was instituted against him on the charge of his being guilty of grave misconduct, inasmuch as, although he had in fact purchased powerlooms after his retirement, he had purported to make it appear that the powerlooms were purchased in October 1960 by manipulating antedated receipts dated October 30, 1960, in a bid to take advantage of the liberalised rules, concerning the powerlooms, which were announced in November 1960. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of that grave misconduct and the President having accepted the said finding by his order dated November 11, 1965 withheld one -fourth of the pension of the petitioner i.e. in the sum of Rs. 47 -55 per month with effect from the date of the said order viz. November 11, 1965.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged that order by filing a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 399 of 1966. When the matter was called on for hearing, in view of certain averments, in the return of the respondents filed in that petition, wherein a reference was made to the notes of the Special Police Establishment, and the fact that the said notes were not even shown to the petitioner at the time of the departmental inquiry, it was held by this Court, that the said inquiry, was vitiated and the order being set aside the matter was remanded for fresh inquiry by another officer. Accordingly, another officer being appointed, he also held like his predecessor that the charge was brought home to the petitioner. This finding of the enquiry officer was accepted by the President and thereafter the President after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, passed an order under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations and Liberalised Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Rules), withholding one -fourth of the pension which was admissible and sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. It was provided that the said order dated February 18, 1971 would take effect from the date of the earlier order i.e. from November 11, 1965.

(3.) THE short question therefore which we are called upon to consider is as to whether the President had the power to withhold a part of the pension of the petitioner retrospectively from November 11, 1965 when in fact the punishment in the departmental inquiry itself was inflicted by order dated February 18, 1971.