Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Gurcharan Singh vs Delhi Development Authority Delhi on 22 July, 2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.1510/2015
New Delhi, this the 22nd day of July, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Gurcharan Singh, A.D.,
S/o Late Shri Ganga Ram,
Aged 66 years,
R/o CD/3A, DDA Flats,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064.
...Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Apurb Lal)
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Chairman,
Raj Niwas Marg,
Delhi-110054.
2. The Commissioner (Personnel),
DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA Market,
New Delhi-110023.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Sanjay Singh for Shri Arun Birbal)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman :-
The applicant joined the service of Delhi Development Authority (for short, DDA) as LDC in the 2 OA No.1510/2015 year 1969. He earned various promotions, and by the year 2000, he became Assistant Director. In January, 2008, before his retirement, an FIR was registered against him, invoking the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant retired from service on 31.07.2008. Through a judgment dated 07.07.2012, the Trial Court convicted the applicant for the offences alleged against him. Sentence of imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.50,000/- were imposed.
2. The CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, were adopted by the DDA with certain changes. The Commissioner of DDA obtained the permission of the Lt. Governor and issued a Show Cause Notice to the applicant requiring him to explain as to why the pension be not forfeited, in view of the conviction ordered against him by the Trial Court. The applicant submitted his explanation on 14.10.2014. Taking the same into account, the competent authority passed an order dated 23.03.2015, forfeiting the pension in its entirety and gratuity in full. The same is challenged in this OA.
3. The applicant contends that the conviction ordered against him was without any basis and the appeal filed 3 OA No.1510/2015 before the appellate Court is pending. It is also stated that an attendant in the DDA was also tried along with him in the criminal case and though he too was convicted of the offences, an order of sanctioning compassionate allowance instead of pension was passed in his case, whereas the respondents have forfeited his entire pension and gratuity.
4. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the applicant was tried and convicted for the offences punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act, read with Section 120- B of Indian Penal Code and that the same has given rise to the imposition of penalty of cut in pension. It is stated that the applicant cannot compare himself with an attendant, particularly, when the nature of allegations against both of them is totally different. As regards the jurisdiction of the authority who imposed the penalty, it is stated that though the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 were adopted, necessary amendments were carried out by the DDA, as regards the description of the authorities vested with powers at various stages.
4OA No.1510/2015
5. We heard Shri Apurb Lal, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Sanjay Singh for Shri Arun Birbal, learned counsel for respondents.
6. Much before the retirement of the applicant, an FIR was registered against him. However, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. After he retired from service, the concerned Criminal Court convicted him for committing offences punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act and 120-B of the IPC. It is not in dispute that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are adopted by the DDA. Since the occasion for imposition of penalty against the applicant arose after his retirement, recourse was taken to the said rules.
7. An objection is raised at the threshold to the effect that the proceedings were not initiated and concluded by the President, who alone is conferred with the powers of pension rules. That contention could have been accepted in case the DDA did not amend the rules. It is not in dispute that after adopting the pension rules, the DDA amended the rules, as regards the discretion of the authorities. The orders in this case are passed by such 5 OA No.1510/2015 authorities. Therefore, the plea raised by the applicant cannot be accepted.
8. The second contention advanced by the applicant is on merits. It is stated that the Trial Court convicted him without there being adequate evidence. Such a plea cannot be raised before the Tribunal. At the most, he can raise that plea before the Hon'ble High Court, where the appeal is said to be pending.
9. The next contention of the applicant is that though he himself and his attendant were tried in the criminal case, a severe penalty was imposed against him whereas his attendant was let off with a lesser penalty. This is not true. The applicant was found guilty of serious offences and he was imposed punishment of imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, whereas the attendant was imposed a punishment of lesser degree. The nature of allegations contained in the charge sheet against both of them was substantially different. The comparison with him is totally misplaced.
10. As the things stand now, we do not find any basis to interfere with the order of punishment and 6 OA No.1510/2015 accordingly, we dismiss the OA. We, however, make it clear that in case the applicant is acquitted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, he can take steps, in accordance with law, to get the penalty either reduced or revoked.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member(A) Chairman /rk/