(1.) THE Union of India, Petitioner in this writ application seek to challenge the Order Dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 227 of 1998, whereby, the Tribunal has been pleased to allow the Original Application filed by the Opposite Party by quashing the order of punishment imposed on the Opposite Party by Order Dated 20.2.1998 directing withholding of 15% of Opposite Party's pension for a period of two years pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding.
(2.) SRI P.N. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India, inter alia, submitted that since the Opposite Party was found to have violated the order of the General Manager, Telecom (Planning), Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar and had sold unserviceable telecom store material to a contractor without inviting sealed tenders or holding public auction, the Tribunal ought not to have quashed the order of punishment directing withholding 15% of pension for a period of two years. He submitted that the Opposite Party Shri Shyam Sundar Mohanty was working as a Telcom District Engineer (TDE), Dhenkanal during the year 1990. The General Manager, Telcom (Planning) had issued a letter dated 25.5.1990 to all Telcom District Engineers directing disposal of unserviceable telcom stores either by inviting sealed tenders or holding public auction, within a period of two months. It is submitted that the Opposite Party joined as the TDE, Dhenkanal on 30.7.1990 and thereby, two months period had already expired. In spite of such direction the Opposite Party did not seek any extension from the General Manager and directed sale of the unserviceable materials to a contractor at a rate which has been approved by the TDE, Tirupati Division and adopted by the TDE, Kurnool Division on 17.7.1989. Learned Counsel submitted that the rate at which unserviceable materials were sold by the Opposite Party was not operative on the date when the materials were sold on 30.8.1990. In view of such circumstances, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of punishment since part of the charges levelled against the Opposite Party was duly established in course of enquiry.
(3.) MR . Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, contended that the right to impose penalty under Rule -9 is not limited nor dependent upon any pecuniary loss alone. Learned Counsel submitted that even if there is no pecuniary loss, an order under Rule - 9 can be passed, if in any disciplinary proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of misconduct or negligence. In this respect, Mr. Mohapatra placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. : AIR1998SC2709 and in particular, the finding of the Supreme Court in paragraph -12 thereof which is quoted hereinbelow: "12. Rule 9 gives to the President the right of (1) withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof (2) either permanently or for a specified period and (3) ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. This power can be exercised if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. The power, therefore, can be exercised in all cases where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. One of the powers of the President is to recover from pension, in a case where any pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, that loss. This is an independent power in addition to the power of withdrawing or withholding pension. The contention of the Respondent, therefore, that Rule 9 cannot be invoked even in cases of grave misconduct unless pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, is unsustainable."