PITABASH MOHAPATRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the Petitioner assails the order of the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 812 of 2002 wherein the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order of punishment passed against the Petitioner in a Departmental Proceeding by the Union of India.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the Petitioner was a member of the Orissa (State) Forest Service. He was charge -sheeted in a Departmental Proceeding during October, 1987. On 9.11.1987, he was promoted and became a member of Indian Forest Service (hereinafter referred as "I.F.S.") and remained in Orissa State cadre. While continuing as an I.F.S. Officer of Orissa Cadre, the applicant submitted a written statement of defence to the charge -sheet on 09.05.1988. The State of Orissa drew an additional charge -sheet against him on 12.06.1989. The Petitioner filed his written statement of defence on 28.09.1989. On 30.06.1991, the Petitioner retired from service on superannuation. After his retirement, the Petitioner faced the enquiry and finally found guilty and the competent authority, namely the Union of India inflicted punishment of reduction of his pension by 25% and for forfeiture of the entire gratuity, as per Order Dated 31.08.2004. Such order of punishment was challenged in the Original Application before the Learned Tribunal.

(3.) IN assailing the orders passed by the Learned Tribunal, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner primarily raised two points: it is first contended that Rule 6 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 does not authorize withholding of gratuity; secondly, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 11426 of 1994 has ordered that the Petitioner be given the retiral benefits as a special case and hence, the Learned Tribunal could not have come to a conclusion contrary to the express directive of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Learned Standing Counsels for the Opp. Parties, on the other hand, supported the finding of the Learned Administrative Tribunal and prayed that the Writ Petition be dismissed.