AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant, a retired Section Officer of the Department of Economic Affairs (hereinafter referred to as “DEA”), Ministry of Finance, is aggrieved by the departmental proceedings initiated against him under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 read with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, pursuant to the Charge Memorandum dated 18.12.2018. It is stated that the proceedings have continued for nearly eight years and have culminated in three successive Inquiry Reports dated 02.12.2020, 14.10.2021 and 17.01.2023, followed by the Advice of the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “UPSC”) dated 23.06.2026, whereby withholding of 20% of the applicant’s monthly pension for a period of five years has been recommended. The said Advice has been forwarded to the applicant vide Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2026.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the sole Article of Charge pertains to the period January-March 2015, when the applicant was serving as Section Officer, DEA. It is alleged that the applicant entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh, the then Under Secretary, Department of Disinvestment, and Sh. Ram Niwas, Assistant, DEA, for pilfering confidential documents relating to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) and passing the same, for illegal gratification, to a private consultant.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the charge has not been established by any direct evidence. No witness has deposed to having seen the applicant handling or handing over any confidential document. It is stated that the finding against the applicant is primarily based upon inferences drawn from intercepted telephone conversations involving the expression “Samaan” and a chain of circumstances concerning third parties, which, according to the applicant, does not directly connect him with the alleged misconduct. It is further stated that even the UPSC Advice records that neither any witness had seen the applicant physically handing over the documents nor was there any documentary trail linking him to the alleged act.
Learned counsel for the applicant further states that serious procedural irregularities have occurred during the inquiry. According to him, despite repeated requests, certified copies of the original listed documents were not supplied to the applicant and he was denied an opportunity to inspect the original documents. It is also stated that the Daily Order Sheet dated 09.08.2019 records that the Charge Memorandum had been prepared on the basis of photocopies of the relevant documents.
It is further stated that the first Inquiry Report dated 02.12.2020 was submitted without a regular hearing, without examination and exhibition of witnesses and without the applicant being examined under Rule 14(18) or being called upon to file his defence statement under Rule 14(16) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Even after remand for further inquiry vide Office Memorandum dated 26.02.2022, the witnesses were allegedly examined without proper prior notice of their identity and without formal exhibits being prepared and proved. The applicant’s representations dated 17.03.2021, 07.03.2022 and 22.05.2023 are stated to have been rejected without proper application of mind.
Learned counsel for the applicant also states that the proceedings have suffered from unexplained and inordinate delay. The alleged incident pertains to January-March 2015, whereas the Charge Memorandum was issued only on 18.12.2018. It is further stated that the matter was remitted for further inquiry twice and, after the applicant submitted his detailed representation dated 22.05.2023 against the third Inquiry Report, the matter remained pending for almost three years and was referred to the UPSC only on 08.04.2026.
It is further stated that, during the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant’s pension, gratuity and leave encashment have been withheld on account of the pendency of vigilance clearance, causing grave hardship to the applicant, who is stated to be about 70 years of age.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has now been called upon, vide Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2026, to submit his representation against the UPSC Advice within 15 days, failing which the matter would be processed further. It is, therefore, apprehended that a final order may be passed pursuant to the said Advice.
Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and having considered the nature of the grievance raised, we are of the view that the grievance of the applicant can appropriately be considered by the competent authority at the first instance.
Learned counsel appearing on advance notice on behalf of the respondents accepts notice.
The competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to consider the grievance of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order, after affording the applicant an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the representations/documents relied upon by him, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The competent authority shall consider the matter independently and in accordance with law and shall pass the speaking order without being influenced by any observation contained in the present order.
The respondents shall communicate the reasoned and speaking order to the applicant forthwith upon its passing.
In view of the aforesaid directions, the present Original Application stands disposed of. Pending M.A(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.