R.S. Khan vs Union Of India And Others

K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

Through the medium of this Miscellaneous Application (MA) the applicant has prayed for allowing her to implead Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Secretary, DoP&T and Secretary, UPSC as additional respondents.

The arguments of the applicant as party in person were heard on 04.05.2018.

As could be seen from the records, the applicant who belongs to Indian Defence Accounts Service (IDAS) was punished by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) after conduct of DE proceedings against her vide impugned order dated 14.08.2015, the operative part of which reads as under:

"NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 the President hereby upholds order No.AN/1/1382/RSK dated 29.03.2011 regarding imposition of penalty of withholding of 25% of admissible monthly pension on permanent basis and a part of gratuity (Rs.159801/- less Rs.75000/- being the amount already deposited by the said Smt. R.S.Khan, vide MRO No.1502 dated 29.08.2002) i.e. Rs.84,801/- (Rs. Eighty four thousand, eight hundred and one) be forfeited to make up for the amount drawn fraudulently upon the said Smt. R.S.Khan."

The applicant was imposed the same penalty earlier by the DA vide order dated 29.03.2011, which was challenged before this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.1275/2012. The Tribunal noticed that the impugned order dated 29.03.2011 was passed by the competent authority after taking into consideration the advice of the UPSC but a copy of the UPSC advice was not given to the applicant for her response/representation against it before passing the said order. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor, [(2011) 4 SCC 589], the Tribunal had quashed the penalty order dated 29.03.2011 with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law.

The order dated 14.08.2015 impugned in the present OA has been passed after complying with the direction of the Tribunal in its order dated 27.01.2015 in OA No.1275/2012.

We find that in disciplinary matters the CVC, UPSC and DoP&T are only advisory bodies. The Courts have held that if the DA acts on the advice of such bodies, before they pass the final order, a copy of such advice should be made available to the accused Government servant so that he/she could file his/her response to such advice. In the instant case, we find that this requirement has been fulfilled by the respondents. The applicant has been given liberty to submit her response to such advice.

In view of the above, we do not consider that CVC, DoP&T and UPSC are the necessary parties to the controversy involved in the OA. Hence, we reject the prayer of the applicant for arraying them as party respondents in this OA.

The MA is accordingly dismissed.