HARAMOHAN KHUNTIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI), REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the Order Dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 671 of 1996. Petitioner was the applicant before the Learned Tribunal.

(2.) PETITIONER retired on superannuation as Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack (South) Division in 1990. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in the year 1992 under Rule 9 of the C.C.S.(Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules'). On conclusion of enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed order on 19.8.1996, copy of which is at Annexure -8, in consultation with UPSC, under Rule 9 of the Rules, withholding 20% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the Petitioner. Petitioner filed the Original Application impugning the charge sheet as Well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority. So far as Petitioner's challenge to the charge sheet issued to him under Memo dated 8.7.1992. Is concerned, the Learned Tribunal held that the prayer was hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the Original Application having been filed on 13.9.1996. Moreover, the Petitioner participated in the enquiry and neither the enquiry report nor any other report reveals that the Petitioner challenged the initiation of the proceedings under Rule 9 of the Rules. With regard to Petitioner's prayer to quash the order of the disciplinary authority withholding 20% of the monthly pension, the Learned Tribunal found that no procedural irregularity was noticed to have been committed in proceeding with the departmental enquiry against the Petitioner and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. In response to Petitioner's contention that charges established against the Petitioner do not make but a case of grave misconduct to attract penalty under Rule 9 of the Rules, the Learned Tribunal embarked upon an analysis of the nature of each of the charges to conclude that misconduct established against the Petitioner not only tell upon non -maintenance of absolute integrity and devotion to duty by the Petitioner but also constitute grave misconduct on his part justifying imposition of penalty under Rule 9 of the Rules.

(3.) IN assailing the impugned Judgment and the order of punishment imposed on the Petitioner, it was vehemently contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that neither in the statement of articles of charge it was alleged that the Petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct or negligence nor any finding to that effect was recorded in the enquiry report. Also, there is no finding by the UPSC in the report at Annexure -9 and the order of punishment of the Government at Annexure -8 to the effect that misconduct committed by the Petitioner was grave. The Petitioner was never intimated that any of the misconduct alleged under the articles of charge was considered to be grave. It was strenuously contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in absence of any charge or finding that the Petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct, the impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal as well as the order of withholding of penalty under Annexure -8 are liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR 1990 SC 1923.