UNION OF INDIA Vs. DHARMESWAR PAYENG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant SGI, for the petitioners. There is no representation today on behalf of the sole respondent, who is common in all the six writ petitions. The cause of action being similar, all the six writ petitions are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The charge(s) against the sole respondent is that he as a Member of the Selection Committee had recommended the names of 221 numbers of casual labourers under the Office of the Telecom District Engineer, Tezpur, which included 22 casual mazdoors under the Office of the Sub-Divisional Engineer (Phones), Tezpur, as Temporary Status Mazdoors, despite the fact that none of them were eligible for such regularisation. The said temporary status was conferred in May, 1996 which, however, was cancelled in October, 1997. According to the petitioner, the said recommendation had been made by the respondent in collusion with other members of the Selection Committee, without verifying the genuineness of the recommendation made by different Junior Telecom Officers/Sub-Divisional Engineers as well as the Certificates issued by Linemen etc., thereby having put the Telecom Department to huge financial loss.

(3.) Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent was initiated after about nine years with Charge Memo dated 15.01.2007. The Enquiry Officer submitted Report on 24.02009 holding the articles of charge as not proved. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings and report of the Enquiry Officer and the same along with a copy of the Inquiry Report was made available to the respondent, enabling him to make representation. Meantime, the respondent retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.10.2009. He submitted representation on 30.11.2009 which, according to the Disciplinary Authority, did not bring out any new facts or evidence to rebut the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. The case of the respondent was thereafter referred to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for its statutory advice as regards the quantum of punishment, which was primarily on the required percentage of deduction from the pension of the respondent. On the basis of the advice tendered by UPSC, the respondent was imposed with the penalty of 20% cut in his monthly pension for a period of three years. The said order of 28.09.2011 was put to challenge by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 040/00084 of 2014.