BALWANT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure P.30) passed by respondent No. 3 inflicting the punishment of reducing 1/3rd pension of the petitioner and also quashing appellate order dated 23.5.2005 (Annexure P.32) passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana on 2.6.1965 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.1997 as Extension Specialist (Youth Programme). After his retirement Pension Payment order No. 859 dated 19.11.1998 (Annexure P.1) was issued to him. On 12.9.2002 (Annexure P.2) the petitioner was issued charge sheet under Clause 2.4 of Statute regarding Pension and Provident Fund Part A (Pension Scheme) and Pension Rules 11.3 to 11.5 (Chapter II General Provision relating to grant of pension) of Punjab Agricultural University asking him to explain why 1/3rd pension be not reduced. The petitioner was not supplied documents in spite of the request dated 26.9.2002 and 3.10.2002 (Annexure P.3). The petitioner, while denying all the charges, submitted his reply dated 3.10.2002 (Annexure P.5) under protest. Vide letter dated 11.10.2002 (Annexure P.6) an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer, Dr. Darshan Singh on 25.10.2002 (Annexure P.7). He objected to the appointment of Dr. Darshan Singh as an Enquiry Officer because the petitioner had expressed the apprehension that he would do Dr. Aulakh's bidding as the petitioner in his complaint to the Chief Minister had alleged that Dr. Darshan Singh had been bestowed undue favours by Dr. K.S. Aulakh, Vice Chancellor. The objection raised by the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 25.10.2002 (Annexure P. 12). On 6.11.2002, the petitioner again represented to the Vice Chancellor that the enquiry conducted by Dr. Darshan Singh would be nothing but a farce because Dr. Darshan Singh was not an impartial person and he nursed ill will against the petitioner. On 21.11.2002 (Annexure P. 14), the petitioner received a show cause notice asking him as to why his 1/3rd pension should not be reduced as the Enquiry Officer had held him guilty of the charges levelled against him. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 19.12.2002 (Annexure P. 16). The Vice Chancellor, without considering the reply of the petitioner, reduced the pension by 1/3rd. However, vide letter dated 31.12.2002 wherein it was alleged that order for reduction of his 1/3rd pension were withdrawn till the receipt of his reply to the show cause notice and its consideration. Ultimately on 14.2.2003 (Annexure P.23), the petitioner received a letter informing that the Vice Chancellor had reduced his pension by 1/3rd. Aggrieved against the order dated 14.2.2003, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 10.3.2003 before respondent No. 2 (Annexure P.24). The appeal was rejected on 28.3.2003 before respondent No. 2 (Annexure P.24). The appeal was rejected on 28.3.2003 (Annexure P.25). The orders dated 10.3.2003 and 28.3.2003 were challenged by the petitioner in the High Court by way of CWP No. 8163 of 2003. A Division Bench of this Court on 5.7.2004 quashed the orders dated 10.3.2003 (Annexure P.23) and 28.3.2003 (Annexure P.25) and remanded the case back to the respondents to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 27.9.2004 (Annexure P.30) again reduced 1/3rd pension of the petitioner. He again filed an appeal on 24.11.2004 (Annexure P.31) which was rejected on 23.5.2005 (Annexure P.32).

(3.) In the written statement it is asserted that respondent No. 3 under Rule 11.3. (II.3) of Chapter II of the General Provisions relating to grant of Pension of the Statutes regarding Pension and Provident Funds and Pension Rules is endowed with the power to reduce the pension of the delinquent official, in the case of grave misconduct committed. Therefore it is claimed that the impugned order is perfectly valid and in accordance with the Rules, Rule II.3 of the Rules is clear and says that if an employee of the University is found guilty of grave misconduct then in that eventuality his pension can be withheld/withdrawn or reduced. The petitioner has been found guilty of grave misconduct as he indulged in such activities.