UNION OF INDIA Vs. M.R. BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1 joined the income-tax services in the year 1969 and demitted office on 31.5.1995 and would, thus, be now about 80 years old. The controversy in the present case emanates from the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent No. 1 where the allegation was of loss of pack containing jewellery worth Rs. 70,000/- on 31.12.1981/1.1.1982. The recommendation of the UPSC was for fifty percent cut of pension for three years as per letter dated 3.2.2000 which was modified on the respondent No. 1's challenging the relevant order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which modified the same to 20% cut of pension for three years vide impugned order dated 17.3.2006. The petitioner-department challenged this order on account of reduction of the punishment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that as per well settled judicial principles, the power to interfere in punishments in disciplinary matters is to be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases which is not so in the present case. On perusal of the impugned order, the reasons for the same are apparent from paragraphs 19 and 20, which read as under:

(3.) What emerges is that the incident of 1981/82 remained unattended for 10 years and, three years prior to retirement, the Chand Parkash respondent No. 1 was served with a charge-sheet. Not only that, it took 11 years thereafter, post retirement, to conclude the proceedings. It is these delays which had weighed with the Tribunal. Not only that, it is not a case of any embezzlement or misappropriation found against respondent No. 1 causing any financial loss to the State exchequer for his personal gain with dishonest motive, but he was only found guilty of procedural lapses.