UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union Territory, Chandigarh through Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Administration has filed the instant writ petition for quashing of the order dated 7.10.2011 (Annexure P3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No.670/CH/2010, whereby the order dated 9.10.2007 imposing punishment of 5% cut on the pension of respondent No.2 for one year, has been set aside being contrary to the provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order.

(2.) The learned Tribunal while referring to Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, which is pari materia to Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 held that the punishment of cut in pension can be imposed only if the delinquent employee has been found guilty of 'grave misconduct or negligence' during the period of his service. If the Disciplinary Authority has not recorded the finding of 'grave misconduct or negligence' against the delinquent employee, no order of imposing cut in pension could have been passed against him. The learned Tribunal further noticed that in the present case even as per the Disciplinary Authority the delinquent employee (respondent No.2 herein) was found guilty of supervisory lapses and was also found negligent in discharging of his duties, but no finding has been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority that the misconduct or the negligence of respondent No.2 was 'grave'. In view of the said finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and in view of the aforesaid provision of law, the learned Tribunal held that in the present case the Disciplinary Authority has acted illegally and contrary to the provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II while imposing punishment of 5% cut in the pension, and set aside the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the aforesaid order of the Tribunal on two grounds, firstly, that the O.A. filed by respondent No.2 was barred by limitation, and without condoning the said delay the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.A. Secondly, it has been argued that the learned Tribunal was not justified in interfering in the impugned order of punishment where a specific finding with regard to misconduct and negligence was recorded against respondent No.2.