UNION OF INDIA Vs. A S RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners Sri S.R. Ashok and learned counsel for the respondent Ms. S. Anuradha.

(2.) The first petitioner is the Union of India and the other two petitioners are various authorities under the control of the South Central Railway. The respondent herein was an employee with the second petitioner.

(3.) The respondent was working as Office Superintendent Grade-I in the office of the Chief Controller of Stores, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. While so, a charge sheet dated 22-05-1997 was issued containing three charges, the details of which are not necessary for the purpose of this writ petition. Suffice to say that the charges relate to the failure on the part of the respondent to supervise the stores, thereby resulting in loss of Rs. 3,00,000/- (approximately) to the employer. It appears that the charge sheet did not reach a logical conclusion for quite some time. But the respondent retired on 31-05-1997, on superannuation. In view of the fact the enquiry was pending, pensionary benefits of the respondent were not paid. Therefore, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 946 of 2001. By order dated 13-06-2002, the above mentioned O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal directing that a final decision be taken in the matter of pending disciplinary enquiry against the respondent, within a period of three months and depending on the decision to be reached, the pensionary benefits of the respondent be paid in tune with such final decision. It appears that the petitioners could not take a final decision within the sitpulated period of three months. A decision was taken finally on 09-01-2003, wherein the respondent was imposed a penalty of 20% cut in pension for a period of five years. The said decision of the petitioners was challenged by the respondent again in O.A. No. 1340 of 2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. By the impugned order dated 03-03-2004, the Tribunal held that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent are "deemed to have been abandoned" and "non-est in the eye of law" and further declared that the order dated 09-01 -2003 is set aside, with a consequential direction to pay all the pensionary benefits to the respondent herein, which are due to him together with 10% interest for the delayed payment. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.