Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Mitter vs Central Administrative Tribunal And ... on 19 May, 2014
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
CWP No.568 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.568 of 2013(O&M)
Date of decision:19.5.2014
Jagdish Mitter ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Central Administrative Tribunal and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
******
HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') on 02.12.2010 whereby challenge to an order passed by the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh on 23.03.2009 imposing a penalty of 5% cut in pension in terms of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Service (Pension) Rules remained unsuccessful in an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The petitioner while working as Superintending Engineer (Electrical), Engineering Department, U.T. Chandigarh was subjected to disciplinary inquiry. Sh. J.K. Parsad, Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, in Central Vigilance Commissioner, New Delhi, was appointed as Inquiry Officer in respect of the charges such as intentionally getting approval of inflated estimates prepared by the Executive Engineer and in allowing the Executive Engineer to function contrary to rules, procedures Diwakar Gulati 2014.05.21 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.568 of 2013 2 and norms. In such inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer returned a finding that the petitioner had to exercise close supervision over the works of the officers subordinate to him and that it was his responsibility to investigate the excesses over sub heads of expenditure, check the rates of works and to satisfy himself that the Division under him was functioning efficiently. He had to closely supervise the functioning of the Executive Engineer under him who was in-charge of the Electrical Division and thus the charge against the petitioner was found to be partly proved. In other words, the charge proved against the petitioner was lack of supervision over the functioning of the Executive Engineer.
Considering the said report, the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh passed an order of 5% cut in pension on 23.03.2009. The challenge to the said order has remained unsuccessful before the Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that 5% cut in pension is illegal; highly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, when the finding of the Inquiry Officer against him is lack of supervision over the functioning of Executive Engineer. It is contended that there is no finding of monetary loss suffered by the Department, therefore, cut in pension is harsh more so when it is for indefinite period. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that 5% cut in pension for 5 years is more than punishment for lack of supervision.
Learned counsel for the Administration submitted that since the petitioner has failed to act in efficient manner so as to supervise working of his subordinates, therefore the cut in pension is fair and reasonable.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that imposition of cut of 5% in pension for life is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner. There is no proof of monetary loss Diwakar Gulati 2014.05.21 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.568 of 2013 3 suffered on account of lack of supervision. The lack of supervision is wide and also vague allegation. The cut in pension for the entire life is disproportionate to the said misconduct. Therefore, the punishment of 5% cut in pension for 5 years would meet the ends of justice and also act as a deterrent for other officers to discharge their duties in a proper manner.
Consequently, the order of Administrator dated 23.03.2009 imposing 5% cut in pension of the petitioner is modified to that of 5% cut in pension for a period of 5 years. Thus, pension will stand restored w.e.f. 01.04.2014.
Disposed of.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
MAY 19, 2014 (FATEH DEEP SINGH)
'D. Gulati' JUDGE
Diwakar Gulati
2014.05.21 13:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document