Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Parveen Kumar Garg vs Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... on 23 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.60/1322/2019
PRONOUNCED ON: 23.01.2026
RESERVED ON: 09.01.2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Parveen Kumar Garg, aged 64 years, son of Shri Pawan Kumar,
resident of 905, Phase-XI, Sector 65, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Vivek Salathia).
Versus
1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, (CSIR),
Anusandhan Bhawan, 2 Rafi Marg, New Delhi through its
President
2. Chief Vigilance Officer, Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research, (CSIR), Anusandhan Bhawan, 2 Rafi Marg, New Delhi
3. Director, CSIR-CSIO (Adhoc Disciplinary Authority), Sector 30-
C Chandigarh.
4. Director, CSIR-CCMB, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology,
Uppal Road, Hyderabad.
5. Controller of Administration (CoA), Centre for Cellular and
Molecular Biology, Uppal Road, Hyderabad.
DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone=
10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d
31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262
KAMLA DEVI
First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65=
1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER=
a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4
65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30'
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC).
2
ORDER
PER: MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Present original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-
1. Order dated 22.02.2019 (Annexure A-18) passed by respondent No. 1, vide which penalty of 50% permanent cut in pension was imposed upon the applicant, may be set aside as the same is arbitrary and without any basis.
2. Order dated 28.10.2019 (Annexure A-23) passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the appeal of the applicant may kindly be set aside.
3. Report of the Inquiry Officer (Annexure A-15) vide which the applicant was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, may kindly be upheld and the complete pension be restored and the respondents be directed to refund the 50% cut in pension back to the applicant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that applicant had joined the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research as an Assistant Executive Engineer on 3.10.1989 and was promoted as an Executive Engineer on 3.10.1994, then as Superintending Engineer on 3.10.1997. On 29.05.2009, he was was promoted as Senior Superintending Engineer and retired on 30.04.2015 on superannuation. On superannuation, pension was released however, the other service benefits to which the applicant was entitled to were DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI not released. Consequently, the applicant sent Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' representation dated 01.05.2015 to respondent No. 4 requesting for release of his gratuity, leave encashment and 3 other retiral benefits followed by another representation dated 09.05.2015.
3. In the meantime, OM dated 10.12.2014 was issued by CVC regarding irregularities in the cutting of trees at CSIR-CSIO Chandigarh. As per OM dated 23.04.2015 issued by CCMB applicant was directed to submit written statement of the defence within 10 days the receipt of MEMO, failing which the inquiry authority can hold the inquiry against applicant ex parte. According to applicant, CCMB even forged the signatures of applicant to create the receipt as a proof of delivery of Charge sheet.
4. Applicant received e-mail dated 18.05.2025 stating that that copy of charge-sheet was already served upon the applicant in a sealed cover on 24.04.2015, the applicant had accepted the same in his proforma on 24.04.2015 but copy of said proforma as a proof of receipt of Charge sheet was not provided.
5. Further, the witnesses were prepared on 12.08.2015 and 13.08.2015. This clearly means that no witness statement was available on 18.05.2015 as alleged by the department.
DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document According to applicant, neither any such charge-
Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' sheet/communication was served upon the applicant nor any acknowledgement was given by the applicant and in order to falsely implicate the applicant probably on account of 4 vendetta, forged acknowledgement was created. At that point of time, the applicant could never imagine that anybody can go to the extent of forging his signatures in order to prove delivery of charge-sheet six days prior to his retirement. Accordingly, again representation dated 19.05.2015 was served by the applicant (Annexure A-4).
Ultimately when the applicant filed a complaint on the P.G. Portal, respondent No. 5 vide letter as well as e-mail dated 24.08.2015, e-mailed the receipt which was being claimed as an acknowledgement duly signed by the applicant (Annexure A-5).
6. Vide e-mail dated 10.07.2015 (Annexure A-6) CCMB informed the applicant that in case he does not respond to the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet on or before 31.07.2015, it shall be presumed that he is not accepting the charges against him and proceedings would be initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules.
7. On 13.07.2015, applicant requested to provide copy of the charge-sheet in order to enable the applicant to submit reply to the charge-sheet. Further, the applicant also submitted DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document para-wise reply to the e-mail dated 10.07.2015. Respondent Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' department attempted to serve the copy of the charge-sheet in a sealed cover, however, at the time of receipt, the applicant requested to open the sealed cover prior to signing 5 the acknowledgement. However, the serving officials insisted that the applicant should acknowledge the receipt without opening the sealed cover. This endorsement was made by the applicant on the document that the document is being attempted to be delivered in a sealed cover without disclosing the contents of the same prior to signing of acknowledgement. However, the applicant submitted parawise reply to email dated 13.07.2015.
8. According to applicant, CCMB did not have the acknowledgement of the applicant as a proof of receipt of charge-sheet, hence in order to cover up, firstly, statements of some staff members of CCMB were obtained and thereafter, signatures of the applicant were forged for creating acknowledgement. In August 2015, the applicant filed an RTI regarding the charge-sheet and the information sought was denied. CCMB provided the scanned copy of proforma only when complaint was filed to P.G. Portal. After going through the scanned copy applicant found that his signatures have been forged by CCMB. This was brought to their notice through letter dated 02.09.2015 after obtaining DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document the report from private handwriting expert with a request to Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' enquire the matter, but no action taken till date. However, on 17.11.2015 communications was received by applicant regarding action to be taken on forging the signatures of the 6 applicant. It was proposed by CCMB that the inquiry/investigation in the issue of forging of signatures can be handed over to CBI.
9. On 26.02.2016, applicant became aware of the fact that respondent No. 3 had been appointed as an Adhoc Disciplinary. Authority. Vide E-mail dated 03.05.2016, CoA CCMB specifically told that the applicant cannot demand the copy of charge-sheet without any enquiry. On 19.08.2016, applicant for the very first time got the Copy of the Memorandum issued by Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology, Hyderabad along with statement of articles of charges, the list of documents but without 1st Stage Advice of CVC. As the respondents had intentionally delayed the enquiry proceedings, applicant was constrained to file CWP 10899 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, which was disposed of with directions to respondents to conclude the enquiry within six months, to consider, and decide all the pleas of petitioner and to pass a speaking order with regards to the retiral benefits of the applicant. Departmental proceedings were completed on DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document 12.04.2018, however, neither the copy of the report of the Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' enquiry officer was supplied to the applicant nor were the retiral benefits released. As the retiral benefits along-with transfer TA on retirement were not being released, the 7 applicant was constrained to file CWP 25613 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Respondent No 3 filed CM-15565-CWP-2018 in CWP-10899-2017 seeking extension of time but the same was dismissed by the court.
10. Applicant received a communication dated 12.12.2018 issued by respondent No.2 (CVO-CSIR, vide which it was intimated to the applicant that Inquiry Officer had exonerated. the applicant from all charges listed in Charge. sheet. However, the competent authority had dissented and accordingly, the copy of the Inquiry report along-with tentative view of the competent authority were communicated to the applicant. On 21.12.2018, applicant submitted his objections/reply. Order was passed by the competent authority imposing the 50% permanent cut in the pension of the applicant.
11. Punishment of 50% cut in pension was imposed on applicant w.e.f. 22.02.2019 and memorandum was also issued directing the other service and pensionary benefits of the applicant to be released. Applicant filed statutory appeal before Appellate Authority before CSIR, New Delhi, through Director CSIO Chandigarh/Adhoc Disciplinary Authority, DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document against final impugned Order dated 22.02.2019. The Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' statutory appeal was forwarded by Director CSIO to CVO, CSIR New Delhi. However, no information was furnished to the applicant regarding this. Applicant filed Application under 8 RTI Act, 2005 with regard to status of the statutory appeal but did not get adequate response. The other benefits along- with transfer TA on retirement of the applicant have not been released and have been withheld since 30.04.2015. Since the statutory appeal filed by the applicant was not being decided applicant filed O.A. No. 909 of 2019, which was disposed of with directions to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks and to comply with their own office memo dated 27.02.2019. Thereafter, benefits got credited into the account of the applicant, however, the interest on delayed payments is not paid by the respondents. Further, M.A. bearing No.MA/1675/2019 was filed by the respondents seeking extension of time, which was disposed of granting one month time for deciding the appeal. On 28.10.2019 Statutory appeal filed by the applicant is disposed of. Hence, the present O.A.
12. According to applicant, perusal of OM dated 12.12.2018 (Annexure A-14) reveals that communication has not been sent by the competent authority, it has been signed by the then Vigilance Officer who is not the competent authority.
DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Hence in the absence of mandatory procedure, impugned Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' order is not legally sustainable. However, tentative view of competent authority reveals that same is neither signed nor it bears name and designation of competent authority. 9 Further, it is not in the form of certified copy. Even report of Inquiry Officer (Annexure A-15) is not certified copy and there is no date.
13. Apart from procedural lapse mentioned above, tentative view of competent authority as well as final impugned order Annexure A-18 are illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and passed in total disregard of evidence available on inquiry file and report of Inquiry Officer. In fact, 6 charges levelled against applicant were not proved and no fresh evidence were available with the competent authority on the basis of which the well reasoned evidence of Inquiry Officer could have been disregarded.
14. As per Annexure A-24, during the course of inquiry, memo dated 10.12.2014 was issued by Director CVC with regard to serious irregularities and cutting of trees at CSIR CSIO Campus, Chandigarh. Thorough examination and action was proposed to be taken against Sh. A. K. Mukherjee, AO. This was done at the first stage advise of CVC.
15. We have perused written statement filed by the respondents on 24.09.2020. According to respondents applicant was DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document issued charge-sheet at CSIR-CCMB for the irregularities in Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' cutting trees at CSIR-CSIO, Chandigarh on advise of the CVC vide memo dated 10.12.2014. The applicant was well aware that about the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him 10 and vide letter dated 22.04.2015 written to Director, CSIR- CCMB, he requested copy of the CVC advice. Memo dated 23.04.2025 was issued to him on 23.04.2015 itself by hand but he did not accept it on that date. On next day i.e. 24.04.2015, after receiving the memorandum in person, he gave a pre-signed acknowledgement deliberately in order to dispute the delivery of memorandum later on.
However, as per Rule 9(6) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, "departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant...." Therefore, it is irrelevant, when the charge memorandum was delivered to the government servant. In the instant case, the statement of charges i.e. Charge Memorandum was issued to the applicant on 23.04.2015 and hence departmental proceedings were deemed to be instituted against him on 23.04.2015 itself (A-
11).
16. Respondents have denied charge of the applicant that disciplinary proceedings came to his knowledge after his retirement as misconceived and baseless. He was well aware DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document that his leave preparatory to retirement had been revoked Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' vide OM dated 20.04.2015 (Annexure R-1). Respondents have filed detailed reply mentioning date wise sequence of events with regard to conduct of inquiry. According to 11 respondents, applicant was paid 100% provisional pension and other retiral benefits were not paid due to pending disciplinary case under Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. According to respondents, applicant is not entitled to any interest on delayed payment and quoting case of A.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) SCT 468 is totally wrong in his case as in the case of applicant retirement benefits have been withheld due to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules and not delayed due to any administrative delay as in the case of A.S. Randhawa.
17. It is further submitted by respondents that all retiral benefit have been paid to the applicant on 27.02.2019 except commuted pension as he did not submit revised option on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. According to respondents, Chief Vigilance Officer, CSIR can authenticate any orders passed by President, Vice President and Director-General, CSIR under his signature. Further, under Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a copy of inquiry report and tentative reasons of disagreement thereof are required to be provided to DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document government servant for making any representation. In the Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' case of applicant also, copy of inquiry report with tentative reasons of disagreement of competent authority were given to applicant vide CSIR letter dated 12.12.2018 by CVO. 12 Report of IO is not binding on Disciplinary authority and Disciplinary Authority can take a different view if he finds that Inquiry Officer failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. Respondents have referred to clause 3 of section 15.9 mentioned in CPWD Manual 2012, based on which the charge memo was prepared. The provisions of this clause also existed at Section 15.8 of CPWD Manual of 2003. We are in agreement with the contentions of the respondents that due process has been followed as evident from their written statement and find no infirmity in conduct of inquiry.
18. We have perused detailed submissions made by respondents in their written statement controverting each and every claim of the applicant and are satisfied with the answers. Instead, we find that the applicant has tried to confuse the situation and set up arguments as also create evidence e.g. regarding non acceptance of the charge sheet, thereby create alibi for himself. Such acts of applicant cannot be appreciated.
19. Further, the applicant has apart from quashing of charge sheet as sought interest on TA claim. T.A. claim is a reimbursement of expenses incurred and not an DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document allowance. No interest can be paid on expenses incurred so Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' no interest is to be paid on reimbursement of expenses incurred. Hence this relief is not admissible to the 13 applicant. Nor can pension be commuted in the absence of option exercised by retiree. So this claim is not acceptable.
20. To sum up, we find that the procedure required to be followed for conduct of inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA), Rules 1965, has been followed and the so called procedural lapse stated by the applicant have been explained in detail by the respondents. According to us there is no procedural lapse or infirmity in the action of the respondents. Applicant has tried to create web of alibis, which is very apparent from the sequence of events as mentioned by him as also from multiple reliefs sought by him. However, the contention of the applicant that the impugned order imposing cut of 50% pension is not in consonance with the rule of proportionality has been considered by us. We find the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. Therefore, considering that the report of Inquiry Officer did exonerate the applicant, we feel ends of justice would be met if the cut in pension is reduced to 25%.
21. Accordingly, the O.A. is partially allowed. No costs.
DN: C=IN, S=Haryana, Phone= 10d7987dd4a8aacfad9360ba903bda3f4c8af2ad599ef7f95112c485da704d 31, PostalCode=134116, STREET=DO Chandan Singh HOUSE No1262 KAMLA DEVI First Floor Sector19 Panchkula, OID.2.5.4.65= 1440e9763d5e4f52bef95c81dbcf9f5b, T=0038, SERIALNUMBER= a8020b659a8c3d8f8edf96aa669156e2b571c782ec5724add6afa6fcaed8e4 65, O=Personal, CN=KAMLA DEVI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 16:33:20+05'30' (RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) /kr/