AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J): This Original Application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 22.12.23 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, DoPT, thereby imposing the penalty of withholding of 30% of the monthly pension of the applicant for a period of 5 years in culmination of the departmental proceeding drawn on the applicant.
Sri B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant joined in Meghalaya Civil Service in 24.11.1975 and in the year 1996 he was nominated to the Indian Administrative Service and placed in the 1990 batch of the Assam-Meghalaya cadre. In course of time he was duly promoted to the super-time scale of the IAS in the scale of 18,400 - 77,400 pm w.e.f 07.01.06 (in the rank of Commissioner and Secretary). He was due for retirement from service on reaching his age of superannuation on 31.05.2011. On that day, while the applicant was about to attend farewell, a Memorandum of Charge dated 31.05.2011 was handed over to him with three Articles whereby a departmental proceeding against the applicant was initiated under the provisions of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. 1969. It was alleged that due to the lapse of the applicant, though the principal sum was recovered, the Government sustained loss of Rs.22.29 Cr. as interest @ 12% till recovery of the sum. The applicant was asked to submit his written statement to the charges. The proceeding was initiated at the instance of Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution in last week of May, 2011 and the Disciplinary Authority acted mechanically in issuing the charge memo without proper application of mind. That on 11.03.2012, the applicant submitted his written statement in response to the Charge memo, categorically denying the charges. Since the incident pertaining to which charges were issued, took place 8 years back, the applicant had sought for some more time to file his written statement in defense, which was however denied and therefore the applicant reserved his right to submit his written statement in detail later on.
Thereafter vide order dated 20.03.2014, Sri Kishore Kumar, General Manager (Region), FCI, J & K, was appointed as the Presenting Officer in place of Sri Lakheswar Saikia, who was earlier appointed as PO vide order dated 17.08.2012 and vide order dated 03.04.2017, one Sri HS Sohal, Indian Forest Service CVO, Engineers India Ltd., New Delhi, was appointed as the new Inquiry Officer. Initially Sri GC Rai was appointed as the IO by order dated 17.08.2012 and thereafter Sri SC Sinha was appointed in his place by order dated 16.12.2014.. It is relevant to mention that the proceeding was drawn vide Charge memo dated 31.05.2011 and it took 6 years for the authorities to appoint the Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding which itself shows that the authorities caused undue hardship to the applicant in the departmental proceeding taking place in his retirement life inasmuch as it became immensely difficult for him to remember things which took place about 14 years back. That the learned counsel states that one Sri Suraj Prakash, Ex General Manager (G), FCI, had consented to act as his Defense Assistant of the applicant in the departmental proceeding and the same was approved. That on completion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 22.06.18 holding that all the three charges drawn against the appellant were not proved. Thereafter, the applicant received letter dated 28.11.2019 from the authorities informing that the competent authority had disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report and the reasons for disagreement was sent to enable the applicant to submit his representation in this regard within 15 days. The applicant submitted his response on 10.02.20 to the letter dated 28.11.19 stating, inter-alia that the reason for disagreement assigned by the authorities in the note of disagreement to the inquiry report, was without any merit and that the same is not maintainable and the proceeding was liable to be dropped in view of the inquiry report.
That by letter dated 03.04.2023, the applicant was forwarded by the authorities the advice dated 21.03.2023 tendered by the UPSC in the matter of departmental proceeding held against the applicant and he was asked to submit representation thereon within 15 days. In the advice, the UPSC held that all the three charges against the applicant in the charge memo were proved. The UPSC advised to impose the penalty of withholding 30% of monthly pension of the applicant for a period of 5 years. The gratuity withheld was directed to be released if not required to be withheld in any other case. On 01.06.2023, applicant submitted his representation on the UPSC advice dated 21.03.2023 stating in detail as to why the findings recorded by the UPSC as to the charges contrary to the enquiry report, was not maintainable in law. The applicant also stated in his response that the punishment proposed was grossly disproportionate to the alleged offence and was shocking to the conscience of any man of prudence, more so when the applicant had retired long back. That thereafter, the matter remained pending with the authorities for a long time. Since the applicant was facing severe hardship for not receiving the gratuity and regular pension and he submitted a number of before the authorities i.e. on 12.08.2020, 30.11.2020 and 16.02.2022, however nothing was done.
Learned counsel has pleaded that since the comment so furnished to UPSC was very relevant, therefore, the applicant made an RTI application on 20.06.2023. The information was denied by CPIO saying that the information was exempted under section S (1) (h) of RTI Act, 2005. The 1st Appeal thereto was also ended with denial of the information. Therefore, the applicant made 2nd appeal before the Central Information Commission, New Delhi on 21.09.2023. However, still the matter is pending before the Commission. The competent authority however, issued the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 imposing punishment of withholding of 30% of monthly pension of the applicant for a period of 5 years. It was also ordered that the gratuity had to be released if it was not released to be withheld in any other case.
By filing written statement, Sri P. Saikia, learned Addl. CGSC for the respondents has contended that the proceedings under Memorandum dated 30/05/2011 stemmed from grave irregularities he had committed in the reimbursement of Hill Transport Subsidy (HTS) during the tenure of his posting as Senior Regional Manager from 21/10/2002 to 06/08/2005 in Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Guwahati under Department of Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Hon'ble Prime Minister had conducted disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant and found him guilty of misconduct and imposed penalty vide Order dated 22.12.2023 (Annexure-A/1).
In reply to the point of delay, learned Addl. CGSC has placed reliance the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5153 of 2021 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Akhilesh Jha & Anr), wherein it was observed as follows:
"Every delay in conducting a disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated. Whether prejudice is caused to the officer who is being enquired into is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances of each case. Prejudice must be demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of surmise."
As per the learned Addl. CGSC, the Charge Memorandum No. 106/7/2011-AVD.I dated 30/05/2011 was served to the applicant under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 for initiation of major penalty proceedings before his retirement. There is no restriction in the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 for serving of the charge sheet to the delinquent officer on the last day of his service and has no limitation regarding period of misconduct. As such raising question on furnishing charge sheet to the delinquent on the last day of his service has no any legal value in the eye of law. In case the applicant had retired from the Govt. service, his retirement would not have absolved him from liability for any misconduct committed during his service tenure. However, the misconduct would have been examined in terms of Rule 6(1) [and Rule 6(1)(b)(ii) regarding limitation period] of the All India Services (Death-Cum-Retirement Benefits), 1958 which provides for recovery of any loss towards the Government in the following manner:
"6 Recovery from pension.-
6(1) The Central Government reserves to itself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Central or a State Government, if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Central or a State Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that no such order shall be passed without consulting the Union Public Service Commission:
Provided further that-
(a)such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the pensioner was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the pensioner, be deemed to be a proceeding under this sub-rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the pensioner had continued in service.
(b)such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the pensioner was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment;
(i)shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Central Government;
(ii)shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and
(iii)shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Central Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceeding on which an order of dismissal from service may be made."
We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the materials placed before us and orders/judgments relied upon.
It is noted that, first disciplinary proceedings for major penalty were initiated against the applicant vide Charge Memorandum dated 30.05.2011 for the grave irregularities of losing as he had committed in conclusion of transport contract for transportation of food grains from Gossaigaon to Dhubri, which resulted los of Rs. 2,08,36,953/- to the FCI. Since the Charges had been proved against the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 17.11.2017 had imposed penalty of withholding 30% of the monthly pension of the applicant for 2 years. The applicant challenged the said major penalty order dated 17.11.2017 before this Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No. 287 of 2018, which was allowed vide order dated 08.04.2024 and set aside the penalty order dated 17.11.2017. Said order of this Tribunal dated 08.04.2024 was assailed by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong by filing WP(C) No. 382/2025 which was allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2025 and remanded the matter to this Tribunal with the following observations.
‘11. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the learned CAT for a fresh decision on the issues discussed in this order.
12.In view of the fact that the respondent has retired in 2011, we request the CAT to dispose of the Original Application as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties unless it is unavoidable. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
13.This writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.04.2024 is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”
Accordingly, after hearing both parties, said O.A. was decided on 26.05.2026 with the following observations:
“12.Vide Memorandum dated 30.05.2011, major proceedings were initiated against the applicant with two Article of Charges. Thereafter, Inquiring Authority was appointed and the Inquiry Authority vide his report dated 28.05.2014 held that Article of Charge (i) as ‘proved’ and Article of Charge (ii) as ‘partly proved’. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority after careful consideration on the recommendation of the Committee of Secretaries and in disagreement with the advice of UPSC had come to the conclusion and awarded imposition of higher penalty of withholding of 30% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the applicant for a period of 02 years, with the direction that gratuity if not required in connection with any other case, may be released vide Order dated 17.11.2017.
13.We have gone through the records and submissions of both parties. In the matters relating to Disciplinary proceeding, , the law has been laid down in the case of Union of India and Others vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as under:
"12.Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a)the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b)the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c)there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d)the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e)the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f)the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g)the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h)the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i)the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13.Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i)reappreciate the evidence;
(ii)interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii)go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv)go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v)interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi)correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii)go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”
14.In this case, charges have been established and the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the advice of UPSC and awarded punishment of withholding of 30% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the applicant for a period of 02 years vide Order dated 17.11.2017.
15.In view of the judgment cited above, it is clear that Disciplinary Authority has taken in to account the facts and circumstances of the case of the instant applicant and came to conclusion, which is as per Rules. As the charges have been established, we are not interfering with the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
16.Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.”
Second Disciplinary Proceedings for major penalty were initiated against the applicant vide Charge Memorandum dated 31.05.2011 that had also resulted in imposition of penalty against the applicant vide Order dated 22.12.2023, which is subject matter of the present case.
It is admitted fact that, in this case, consequent on denial of charges by the applicant vide his reply dated 11.03.2012, the Disciplinary Authority remitted the case for oral inquiry by appointing an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer; and accordingly, Inquiry Officer had conducted the inquiry and in his report dated 22.06.2018 held all the three Articles of Charge against the applicant as ‘Not Proved’. The Disciplinary Authority, however, disagreed with the findings of Inquiry Officer with regard to all the three Articles of Charge and accordingly forwarded a copy of Inquiry Officer's Report along with his Disagreement Note to the applicant vide letter dated 28.11.2019 eliciting his representation, if any. The applicant submitted his representation dated 10.02.2020. The Disciplinary Authority examined the representation of the applicant and furnished its comments on the representation of applicant before forwarding the same to the Central Government. Thereafter, the Commission observed that the Central Government considered the available records, IO's Report, Representation of the applicant and all other factors relevant to the case and observed that the charges in Article I, II & III are tentatively 'Proved' against the applicant; and since the tentatively proven charges are grave enough i.e. causing huge financial loss to the Corporation, therefore, it warrants imposition of a suitable penalty under Rule 6 of All India Service (DCRB) Rules, 1958, therefore, vide communication dated 21.03.2023, UPSC advised the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension to impose penalty of withholding of 30% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the applicant for a period of 05 years. Further advised that the withheld amount of gratuity, if not required to be withheld in any other case, may be released. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 22.12.2023 had imposed penalty upon the applicant as follows:
“withholding of thirty percent (30%) of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to Shri Arindam Som, IAS (AM:1990) (Retd.) for a period of five (05) years. The withheld amount of gratuity, if not required to be withheld in any other case, may be released.”
It is admitted position that the amount was wrongly transferred in the account of the Arunachal Pradesh Govt. from the FCI account. Thus, he has lost the interest of public exchequer; and loss of interest was recovered by the Department @ 30% monthly pension from the applicant vide order dated 22.12.2023.
The Tribunal notes that the Disciplinary Authority followed the exact statutory process by issuing the disagreement note, considering the reply, consulting the UPSC, and passing a reasoned order. It is a settled principle that courts and tribunals do not act as an appellate authority over disciplinary proceedings. Since the charges of financial loss were established through the due process of law, and the penalty is permitted under Rule 6 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, therefore, we are not interfering with the impugned order.
Accordingly, O.A. stands dismissed. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.