This court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order which reduced the disciplinary punishment of a retired income-tax officer from 50% to 20% pension cut. The court held it was not a fit case to interfere.
The writ petition was dismissed without invoking jurisdiction under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH
Civil Writ Petition No.3598 - CAT of 2007 (O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 20.03.2014
Union of India
…..Petitioner
versus
M.R. Bhagat and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI
Present: Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Advocate for Ms. Anju Arora, Standing Counsel for UOI, for the petitioner
SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE : (Oral)
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 em anates from the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent No.1 where the allegation was of loss of pack containing jewellery worth ` 70,000/ - on 31.12.1981/ 1.1.1982. The recomm endation 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 im pugned order dated 17.3.2006.
The petitioner-department challenged this order on account
of reduction of the punishment.
Chand Parkash 2014.03.21 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CW P- 3598 - CAT- 2007
- 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:
“ 19. The only question which disturbs the conscience of the court is with regard to quantum of punishment. In our view, there is undue and inordinate delay in completion of these proceedings as admittedly incident is of 1982 and nothing was done by the respondents almost for 10 years and all of a sudden which only 3 years were left for his retirement in 1995, the applicant was served with a charge sheet in 1992. The matter would have ended, had the respondents completed the inquiry within, a reasonable time but even after issuance of said charge sheet in 1992, the respondents have taken further 11 years of conclude it, even after his retirement in 1995, the applicant has suffered agony of these procedure for 8 years. In the 10 years from 1982 to 1992, this undue delay by no stretch of imagination, can be attributed to the applicant. Had this inquiry been concluded during the service tenure, he would have been imposed some other punishment prescribed under CCS (CCA) Rules to that effect.
What emerges is that the incident of 1981/ 82 remained unattended for 10 years and, three years prior to retirement, the
Chand Parkash 2014.03.21 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CW P- 3598 - CAT- 2007
- 3 -
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.
The aforesaid are the cogent reasons for the Tribunal to have interfered with punishment of the reduction in punishment. Today, to interfere with the impugned order would amount calling upon an eighty years old m an to suffer a cut of thirty percent pension for a period of three years in question and pay this amount to the department, a course of action completely unacceptable to us.
We are, thus, of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise
our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
| ( SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL ) CHI EF JUSTI CE |
|
|---|---|
| 20.03.2014 | ( ARUN PALLI ) |
| parkash* | JUDGE |
Chand Parkash 2014.03.21 14:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to challenge the Central Administrative Tribunal's order reducing the quantum of pension penalty.
Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal was a fit case for this Court to interfere with under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India
M.R. Bhagat
Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Arun Palli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
