AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Heard Shri Ashish Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
The present contempt petition has been filed against the non implementation of the order of this Tribunal dated 21.03.2023 passed in OA No.177 of 2023. The operating portion of the order is reproduced as below:-
It is evident from perusal of record that in pursuance of the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, disciplinary authority has yet not passed any punishment order, we think it proper to dispose of the OA with a direction to the applicant to move a comprehensive representation before the Disciplinary Authority ventilating his all grievance regarding date of supply of relevant document to him and date of examination of the accounts holder by Inquiry Officer and other irregularities in the enquiry within period of 15 days from today and Disciplinary Authority are directed to pass a detailed and speaking order after considering the representation of the applicant within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
At the outset, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the period elapsed provided in the judgment and order passed in the O.A., no order has been passed on the inquiry report till date, rather respondents have filed their counter affidavit, thus argued that competent authority is not intended to comply with the direction given in the O.A.. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents particularly referred to the para no. 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit and argued that on the representation of the applicant suitable action has been taken by the disciplinary authority and the whole case has been submitted to RO Gorakhpur in prescribed proforma vide office letter no. F-4/2/2014-15/DP/CH-I dated 11.06.2024 at Basti and due to which the case will be decided at Dte. level. It is further argued that respondents intended to comply with the direction given in the O.A.. It is further submitted that aforesaid step was taken because the applicant has retired from service and there is Rule-9 of CCS (pension)-1972 which was amended into Rule-8 of CCS (Pension) 2021 which provides that on submission of inquiry report, in case charged official has retired from service, the case will be submitted to regional office Gorakhpur for taking further action in accordance with rule. It is further argued that whatever action is taken in accordance with rule, respondents will immediately inform the Tribunal. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the Rule-9 of CCS (Pension) 1972.
We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.
Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the entire records, we are of the view that although compliance affidavit has not been filed at the end of respondents but for the reasons disclosed in the counter affidavit, it would be just and proper to provide some more time to the respondents to file compliance affidavit.
In the circumstances, list this matter on 24.09.2025 and by that time respondents are hereby directed to file compliance affidavit.