UOI and Another vs Dr. B.N. Mittal

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal) in O.A. No. 2339/2004 the petitioner had challenged the Disciplinary Authority''s order dated 09.07.2004

whereby he had been awarded the punishment of 100% cut on pension on permanent basis along with forfeiture of the entire gratuity amount. The

facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a Charge Memo on 14.12.1999 containing three articles of charge. The disciplinary

proceedings were initiated and continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on

29.11.2001 whereby he had held that none of the articles of charge were proved against the respondent. Thereafter the second stage CVC advice

dated 27.05.2003 was obtained. By a letter dated 18.06.2003 the grounds of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority were communicated to

the respondent. On 04.07.2003, the objections/representations of the respondent were furnished insofar as the disagreement notice was

concerned. Thereafter, the UPSC advice was rendered on 22.04.2004 and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 09.07.2004

imposing 100% cut in pension permanently and also entailing forfeiture of the entire gratuity amount. Since the President was the Disciplinary

Authority, there was no provision of appeal and consequently, the respondent filed the said O.A. No. 2339/2004 before the Tribunal challenging

the said order dated 09.07.2004.

The Tribunal held in favour of the respondent. According to the Tribunal the order dated 09.07.2004 had been passed by the Disciplinary

Authority without any application of mind. The Tribunal was of the view that because no reasons have been recorded in the said order, it

demonstrated non-application of mind and this had greatly prejudiced the respondent.

The original file has been produced before this Court. On going through the original file, it appears prima facie that there the reasons exist on the

file though they have not been communicated to the respondent. At this juncture, Mr. Khurana submitted that as this file had not been placed

before the Tribunal, it would be appropriate if the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal, which may examine this file and then pass appropriate

orders.

We agree with Mr. Khurana that since the Tribunal did not have the occasion to examine the original file and, therefore, did not have the benefit

of the same, it cannot be faulted for arriving at the conclusion that it did. Consequently, the best course would be to set aside the impugned order

and remit the matter to the Tribunal to consider the case afresh after hearing the parties. The petitioner shall produce the relevant file before the

Tribunal at the time of hearing.

In the first instance, the matter be listed before the Tribunal on 17.01.2013. We make it clear that the Tribunal shall re-consider the entire matter

afresh without being influenced by its earlier order and/or any observations made by us in this order. This writ petition stands disposed of with the

above directions.