Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. K.L. Prashar vs Dda & Ors. Through on 29 August, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 4308/2010 ORDER RESERVED ON: 23.07.2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 29.08.2012 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR, MEMBER (A) Sh. K.L. Prashar, R/o 105, Pocket-IV, Pratap Nagar, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus DDA & Ors. through 1. The Lt. Governor, Delhi, Chairman DDA Raj Niwas, Delhi. 2. The Vice Chairman, DDA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. 3. The Finance Member, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocate Shri Karunesh Tandon) O R D E R
Shri G. George Paracken:
The applicant in this OA has retired from service from the office of respondent Delhi Development Authority (`DDA for short) as an Assistant Director. He is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 order of the disciplinary authority dated 10.05.2010 imposing upon him the penalty of 10% cut in pension for four years and the impugned Annexure A-2 order 26.10.2010 of the appellate authority rejecting his appeal against the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority.
2. The facts of the case in brief are delineated hereunder. While working as Assistant Director with the respondent-DDA, he was served with the Annexure A-3 Memorandum dated 15.11.2007 proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Regulation 25 of the DDA Conduct Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999. The article of charge famed against him was as under:
Sh. K.L. Prashar, A.D. while working in EHS (Housing), DDA during the year 2000 and while processing the cases of Expandable Housing Scheme-1995, dealt with 48 files and processed for restoration of allotment in violation of the terms and conditions of the brochure. It was clearly stipulated that the allotment shall be cancelled and the deposits will be forfeited if the request of the cancellation was not made within stipulated period. The 48 cases were processed without any proper scrutiny at his level. Out of 48 flats, 43 flats were purchased by one Sh. Raju Chawla (property dealer), whose agents had purchased the original registration papers/documents related to sale/purchase of these flats.
By this above act of Sh. K.L. Prashar, AD exhibited lack of absolute devotion to duty, lack of absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravened rule 4 1(I) (ii) (iii) of DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations 1999. The statement of imputation of misconduct in support of article of charges famed against him was as under:
Sh. K.L. Prashar, A.D. while working in EHS (Housing), DDA during the year 2000 and while processing the cases of Expandable Housing Scheme-1995, dealt with 48 files which were submitted/processed by Sh. Jagbir Singh, UDC for restoration against the terms and conditions of the brochure. It was clearly stipulated in the restoration brochure that the deposits will be forfeited if the request of the cancellation of the flats were not made within stipulated period. The 48 cases were processed without any proper scrutiny at the dealing clerks level. Out of 48 flats, 43 flats were purchased by one Sh. Raju Chawla (property dealer), whose agents had purchased the original registration papers/documents related to sale/purchase of these flats.
CBI vide its report dt. 19.7.04 alleged that Sh. K.L. Prashar, A.D., DDA while supervising the cases of 43 EHS flats which were purchased by Sh. Raju Chawla received a bribe of Rs.85,000/- for allowing registration of the above 43 cancelled cases. After receiving the illegal gratification Sh. K.L. Prashar, AD without verifying the genuineness and the signatures of the allottees submitted the cases to the higher authorities and got them restored from Commr.(H)/VC,DDA. After restoration the names of the allottees were put in the draw held on 28.9.2000.
In these cases as per CBI report the original allottee is unaware of the new allotment. The request for restoration was submitted by the property dealer and the signatures of the original allottees were forged. Without verifying the genuineness of the signatures of the original allottees, the cases were put up to the higher authority. Perusal of the above cases shows that a policy of pick and choose was adopted.
By his above act Sh. K.L. Prashar, AD exhibited lack of absolute devotion to duty, lack of absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravened rule 4 1(I) (ii) (iii) of DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeals Regulations 1999.
3. The Inquiry Officer after holding a detailed inquiry into the aforesaid charge submitted his report on 25.05.2009. In the said report, the Inquiry Officer has held that the main defence of the applicant was that, according to the circulars issued from time to time in the Housing Department of DDA, it was the responsibility of the AD/DD to satisfy themselves about the genuineness of the original registrants and their signatures and while putting up the case he had brought to the notice of the senior officers that the registration amount has already been refunded and the cases for restoration cannot be accepted but the Director (H) ignored the noting of the CO and got these flats restored through GRC (Grievances Redressal Committee). He has also referred to the general examination during the inquiry where he was asked What were the reasons to open up the files of 48 flats which had already been cancelled. In reply to the aforesaid question, his answer was On the request of allottees as well as meeting held with the higher authorities, a parliament question was received for which reply was filed with the facts that the flats wherein civil amenities are not available will not be treated as cancelled. Accordingly, 2 flats were restored as per the orders of UDM. After the restoration, it was directed by the then Dir (Housing) to treat the orders of UDM as precedent and put up these balance cases accordingly. I did not agree with the proposal of the then Dir. (H) and insisted that order of the competent authority are solicited in every case which was accorded by the competent authority i.e. VC/DDA. To another question, Was there any special brochure taken out by DDA in r/o EHS Scheme of 1995 and if yes, what were the specific provisions contained in the brochure for allotment of flats. He answered as under:
Yes, EHS Scheme was sponsored as per the brochure of 1995 pertaining to EHS. As per clause-14 of this brochure, if the request is received within one month than a sum of Rs.5000/- is required to be deducted for cancellation and Rs.10,000/- if request is within 60 days from the date of issue of letter and therefore it is cancelled automatically and registration money forfeited. Again, to the general question, What were the reasons to initiate the case for restoration of flats when once the registration money had been forfeited and names of the original registrants cancelled by DDA. his answer was as under:
There was very poor response of EHS flats constructed by DDA and entire cost of the scheme was blocked and this aspect has been brought in the notice of the VC by the Commr. (H) in every case. Therefore the allotment in r/o 48 cases has been considered by the Competent Authority on market rate i.e. VC/DDA. Further, in answer to the question, What prompted you to process the remaining cases after two cases were restored by UDM his reply was as under:
All the 48 cases were pending with the GRC. Out of these 2 representatives appeared before the UDM and the request for restoration was considered by the UDM. Accordingly a meeting was held in the chamber of the then Dir (H) and he directed to treat the orders of the UDM as precedent but this was not agreed to and every case was placed before the competent authority for restoration.
4. The applicant has also invited our attention to the general discussion in the inquiry report wherein the Inquiry Officer has recorded as under:
As per Clause-14 there is no provision for restoration of the cancelled flats.
There were certain persons, who had got themselves registered under this scheme, but did not get the allotment. These people got their registration cancelled, there were certain other persons whose registration was cancelled and their registration was forfeited. In the case two flats no. 214 & 25 of EHS Scheme in Rohini, the registration money had been refunded to the registrants and yet these houses were restored. The CO mentions that, when the file for restoration of these flats was put up to him, then, it was pointed out by him that this cannot be done but his noting was ignored and his higher officer approved it. The C.O. says that at that time, he was working as Supdt. & not as A.D. It appears (though not brought on record) as mentioned by the C.O. (during his general examination) that while replying to a parliament question DDA had given an assurance that allotment will be restored in respect of those colonies, where the flat stands allotted and civil amenities not provided. The restoration was to be done, if a request from the registered allottee is received. Two flats (whose registration was cancelled by DDA) were restored by the Ministry of UDM after a request was made by them during one of the meeting of the representatives of the registrants.
After two flats were restored by the Ministry, the officials in DDA, became bold and started processing the restoration further of cancelled flats further. The C.O. contends that the then Director (H) had directed to treat the orders of UDM as a precedent and put the balance cases accordingly. Though there is nothing on record to establish this matter. The C.O. contends that he ha not agreed to the proposal of the then Director (H) and insisted that the orders of the competent authority be obtained, which were ultimately obtained. One of the reason given by the C.O. for restoration of the cancelled flats is that there was a poor response from the public these flats and DDAs money was blocked. This aspect was brought to the notice of the VC by Commissioner (H), etc. The higher authorities then directed to restore at the market price. The C.O. had not produced any document to authenticate this.
Once the money of the registrants stands forfeited, then the individual has in fact no locus standee with DDA. The C.O. contents that, cases were considered by the competent authority due to poor response/demand of these flats. This was in the larger interest of the DDA.
Regarding the charge of scrutiny of papers, their examination, genuineness of signatures etc. the C.O. has simply washed off his hands by arguing that the cases were put up by the dealing Asstt. as per the application received from the registrants for restoration, the facts of the case were mentioned by him on the fact sheet, which was considered by him as Supdt. and submitted the case further to AD (EHS), who was the competent authority to examine the signatures and genuineness of the registrants. The C.O. says that as Supdt. he was required to submit the files put up by the dealing Asstt. to his A.D. with the facts of the case and he had done so. C.O. also contends that it was not mandatory on his part to check the genuineness of signatures/document, this was in fact to be done by A.D. as per policy. The C.O. has also denied the charge that he had received bribe of Rs.85,000/- from one property dealer Sh. Raju Chawla. As per the complaint 43 flats out 48 flats were purchased by Sh. Raju Chawla (Property dealer) whose agents had purchased the original registration papers/documents related to sale/purchase of these flats. The C.O. has said so during his general examination conducted on 17.04.09.
5. The applicant has also invited our attention to the extract of the notes in the relevant file wherein he has stated as under:
Registration amount has been refunded to the Registrant after deducting cancellation charges as per policy. Therefore, at this stage request of restoration of allotment cant be considered. Therefore Registrant may be intimated accordingly. Further, he has pointed his noting in the file on 06.01.2000 which is as under:
Once the refund of registration amount has been made after deducting cancellation charges as per the policy request for restoration cannot be acceded to at any stage.
6. After having considered all the points raised by the prosecution as well as the defence, the Inquiry Officer held that the aforesaid charge against the applicant was proved. The findings of the Inquiry Officer were as under:
FINDINGS:
i) C.O. processed the files/cases for restoration of cancelled flats even after the entire amount of the initial deposit had been forfeited. This act on his part was against the provision contained in the brochure issued by the DDA for EHS Scheme. The C.O. cannot deny that he did not have to go into the details of cases and point out any discrepancy in the records. I have gone through the circulars issued by the Housing Deptt. of DDA regarding verification of records/signatures etc. Nowhere in these circulars, has it been stated that it would not be the responsibility of the Supdt. (the post which C.O. was holding at that point of time) to verify the signatures of the allottee/parties. The reply of the C.O. given during his general examination it was not mandatory for him, as the cases were put up by the dealing Asstt. after taking into consideration all the facts of the representations on record. In fact no such circular has been produced before me which says that verification of signatures/genuineness of the registrants is not to be made by the Supdt.
ii) The plea of the CO that genuineness has to be verified by the AD as per the policy is not acceptable/convincing to me. The C.O. cannot act as a post office, pushing the matters up and down.
It is an acceptable practice in administration that the official who processes the files/papers has to point out in his note about such important matters, as verification of signatures of the original applicant/registrant. The C.O. cannot be absolved of the responsibility of not doing so, only because circular mentions that verification should be done by officials senior to him. I have gone through the various circulars issued by the Housing Branch, nowhere in these circulars has it been stated that it would not be the responsibility of the Supdt. of the EHS Branch to verify the signatures of the parties in record.
It is very clear that before issuing possession letters, efforts have to be made to verify the signatures of the registrants. The CO is trying to take shelter behind the mention in the circular that the concerned A.D. or Dy. Dir. Should do this verification. It is a common practice that the official who processes the files should verify all the aspects before putting up the case to his senior.
The plea of the C.O. that whatever, he did was done as per the instructions/approval of officers, who were his superiors is not acceptable to me. By stating that approval was taken from the higher officers is not enough. The C.O. is only trying to shift the blame on to the seniors, which has not been substantiated.
The allottees/registrants, were not even aware of the new allotment having been made to them, since they never expected it as their initial deposit has been forfeited. I am, therefore, inclined to accept that the C.O. had thought of putting up the cases of restoration of cancelled flats after convincing with some property dealers, whose agents had purchased the original registration papers relating to these flats. There is a report from the CBI that the request for restoration of flats was submitted by the property dealers and the signatures of the original allottees were forged. The cases were put up to higher authorities without verifying the genuineness of the signatures of the original allottees and the signatures were forged one, on the request application made to DDA for restoration.
I hold the view that the C.O. Sh. K.L. Prashar would not have done so without having received some gratification for such an act. In fact, no one would do so without any personal interest, it may be in any shape. Though no evidence ha been produced before me by the prosecution that the property dealers had in fact given some kind of bribe to the C.O. but I hold the view that the evidence recorded by the CBI officials has much substance and it has to be relied upon.
A clear and acceptable inference is drawn by me from the various facts brought on record that the C.O. got the encouragement to put up the remaining cases for restoration, after two cases were approved by the ministry on the basis of the request made by some of the representatives of the original registrants. This approval from the UDM was treated as a precedent for other cases. This approval from the Ministry, encouraged the C.O. to make the dead cases alive.
vi) The C.O. also managed to misguide the senior officers to agree to the proposal for restoration of the cancelled flats, under the pretext that, there is a poor response for these flats and the DDAs money is blocked. In fact the C.O. wanted to get the regularisation, since he had been obliged by the property dealers who had purchased all the papers relating to these flats.
7. In the Annexure A-7 representation dated 14.09.2009 against the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the applicant has pointed out to the disciplinary authority that As regards restoration of allotment flat no.214 and 215 of sect. 25, Rohini, I would like to mention here that these cases were placed before the applicant and on going through facts of the cases,the applicant immediately pointed out that the Registration amount has been refunded to the Registrants after deducting cancellation charges, therefore, the request for restoration cannot be acceded to. But the senior officers turned down the above view of the applicant and allowed the restoration at their own. This clearly gives an inference that proposals, recommendations and notings put up by the lower functionaries had no stand before the higher officers especially in the cases of EHS Scheme.
8. However, the disciplinary authority, vide the Annexure A-1 order dated 10.05.2010, stated that the Inquiry Officer in his report has held that the charge against the applicant was proved. It further stated that after having gone through the facts of the case including the Inquiry Report has come to the conclusion that in view of the seriousness of the charges which have been proved by the IO, the ends of justice will be met if the penalty of 10% cut in pension for four years is imposed on Shri K.L. Parashar, Asstt. Director (Retd.).
9. The applicant has challenged the aforesaid order of the disciplinary authority on the ground that it is absolutely a non-speaking order and, therefore, it cannot be sustained. In this regard, the learned counsel for the applicant Shri M.K. Bhardwaj has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shri D.V. Kapoor Vs. Union of India & Ors. (JT 1990 (3) SC 403) wherein it has been held that unless there is a finding by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner has committed a grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of his duty while in office, it is without authority of law to impose penalty as a measure of punishment. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:
9. As seen the exercise of the power by the President is hedged with a condition precedent that a finding should be recorded either in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings that the pensioner committed grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of his duty while in office, subject of the charge. In the absence of such a finding the President is without authority of law to impose penalty of withholding pension as a measure of punishment either in whole or in part permanently or for a specified period, or to order recovery of the pecuniary loss in whole or in part from the pension of the employee, subject to minimum of Rs. 60/-.
10. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha: 2010 (2) SCC 772 wherein it has been held that the departmental inquiry cannot be treated as a casual exercise. According to the applicant, the disciplinary authority has not considered the contents of the Inquiry Officers report or his representation against it but in a very casual manner passed the impugned order imposing the penalty of 10% cut in pension upon him. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:
30. When a department enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.
11. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7431 of 2008) reported as 2009 (2) SCC 570 and stated that the disciplinary authority did not apply its mind in the matter. According to him, as held by the Apex Court in Roop Singh Negis case (supra), the appellate authority has to deal with the contentions of the charged officer in the light of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. The Apex Court has also held that the appellate authority has to see on what evidence, the charge official was found guilty. The relevant parts of the said judgment read as under:
6. Appellant made a representation against the said order before the appellate authority. The appellate authority noticing his contentions in details, inter alia, on the premise that appellant had been given an opportunity of personal hearing, the appeal was dismissed, opining:
"In view of the above, the submissions made by the appellant in his appeal dated 23.02.2001 and his verbal submissions made during personal hearing are devoid of merits. As such I find no reasons to interfere or alter the order of Disciplinary Authority. Thus keeping in view the nature and gravity of the proven charges, punishment of "Dismissal from Bank Service", imposed upon Shri Negi by Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 24.01.2001 is hereby confirmed and appeal of Shri Negi is rejected."
7. The appellate authority also did not apply his mind to the contentions raised by the appellant; no reason was assigned in support of his conclusion. On what evidence, the appellant was found guilty was not stated.
8. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said orders, the appellant filed a Writ Petition. The same by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed, stating:
"...The writ jurisdiction can be exercised by this court only in exceptional circumstances which have not been mentioned by the petitioner in the petition. However, once the petition was admitted for hearing in exercise of the writ jurisdiction after a lapse of so many years since the writ petition was admitted in the year 2001, it may not be appropriate for this Court to pass an order now that the petitioner should make out a case for reference to the industrial tribunal and therefore the petition filed by the petitioner is being considered."
12. The respondents have filed their reply stating that in the orders of the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of 10% cut in pension and as confirmed by the appellate authority, there are no legal infirmities. According to them, those orders have been passed after duly considering all the aspects of the case. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any relief sought for in this application. They have also stated that during the departmental inquiry, it has been proved that the applicant had thought of putting up the cases for restoration of cancelled flats after mixing with some property dealers, whose agents had purchased the original registration papers relating to these flats and there was a report from the CBI that the request for restoration of flats was submitted by the property dealers and signatures of the original allottees were forged. The cases were put up to higher authorities without verifying the genuineness of the signatures of the original allottees and the signatures were forged one.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Karunesh Tandon. The charge against the applicant was that while processing the cases of Expandable Housing Scheme-1995, he had processed 48 files for restoration of allotment in violation of the terms and conditions of the brochure. While it was clearly stipulated that the allotment shall be cancelled and the deposits will be forfeited if the request of the cancellation was not made within the stipulated period, 48 cases were processed without any proper scrutiny at his level. Out of 48 flats, 43 flats were purchased by one Shri Raju Chawla (property dealer), whose agents had purchased the original registration papers/documents related to sale/purchase of these flats. The Inquiry Officer in his report has held that the main defence of the applicant during the inquiry was that, according to the circulars issued from time to time in the Housing Department of DDA, it was the responsibility of the AD/DD to satisfy themselves about the genuineness of the original registrants and their signatures. The Inquiry Officer has further noted the contention of the applicant that while putting up the case he had brought to the notice of the senior officers that the registration amount has already been refunded and the cases for restoration cannot be accepted but the Director (H) ignored the noting of the CO and got these flats restored through GRC (Grievances Redressal Committee). However, in the findings, the Inquiry Officer has stated that the applicant processed the files/cases for restoration of cancelled flats even after the entire amount of the initial deposit had been forfeited. Therefore, this act on his part was against the provision contained in the brochure issued by the DDA for EHS Scheme. The Inquiry Officer has also stated that he had gone through the circulars issued by the Housing Deptt. of DDA but he failed to find out that there was any instruction that it would not be the responsibility of the the post which the applicant was holding at that point of time to verify the signatures of the allottee/parties. He has also pointed out that during the general examination, the applicant has stated that it was not mandatory for him, as the cases were put up by the dealing Asstt. after taking into consideration all the facts of the representations on record. The other finding was that the plea of the applicant that genuineness has to be verified by the AD as per the policy is not acceptable/convincing to him. He could not have acted as a post office pushing the matter up and down. It has also been stated that it was the common practice that the official who processes the files should verify all the aspects before putting up the case to his senior. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer held that the applicant had thought of putting up the cases for restoration of cancelled flats after conniving with some property dealers, whose agents had purchased the original registration papers relating to these flats. He has also stated that there was a report from the CBI that the request for restoration of flats was submitted by the property dealers and the signatures of the original allottees were forged. The cases were put up to higher authorities without verifying the genuineness of the signatures of the original allottees and the signatures were forged one. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer has held that the applicant would not have done so without having received some gratification for such an act. In fact, no one would do so without any personal interest. Though no evidence has been produced by the prosecution that the property dealers had given some kind of bribe to the applicant but he was of the view that the evidence recorded by the CBI officials has much substance and it has to be relied upon. In any case, a clear and acceptable inference was drawn by him from the various facts brought on record that the applicant got the encouragement to put up the remaining cases for restoration, after two cases were approved by the Ministry on the basis of the request made by some of the representatives of the original registrants. The applicant, therefore, managed to misguide his senior officers to agree to the proposal for restoration of the cancelled flats under the pretext that there is poor response for these flats and the DDAs money is blocked. But the fact was that the applicant wanted to get the regularisation, since he had been obliged by the property dealers who had purchased all the papers relating to these flats.
14. Of course, it is a well settled law that the scope of interference by the Courts/Tribunal in a disciplinary case against a public servant is very minimal. It does not re-appreciate or re-examine the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer for the simple reason that it is not sitting as appellate authority. As held by the Apex Court in State of A.P & Ors. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao : AIR 1963 SC 1723, Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of a court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal would interfere only if the proceedings have been conducted by the authorities concerned in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry. If the inquiry has been otherwise held properly, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy of reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal in a proceeding. In Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya & Ors.: 1997 (2) SCC 699, the Apex Court has held that the purpose of the departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency in public service. Again in State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena (1996 (6) SCC 417), the Apex Court has held that the approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether charged officer is guilty of such conduct as would amount to his removal/dismissal from service or a lesser punishment as the case may be.
15. Again, as held by the Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 484): 1995 (6) SCC 749, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view of the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct and Court/Tribunal normally does not substitute these punishments.
16. But the position is altogether different in a case of cut in pension as a penalty imposed upon an employee who has already been admitted to pension and granted the terminal benefits. The Apex Court has considered the aforesaid issue in D.V. Kapoors case (supra). The condition precedent for imposing any such punishment is that there shall be a finding recorded in departmental inquiry that the pensioner committed grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of his duty while in office, subject of the charge. In the absence of such a finding, the disciplinary authority is without authority of law to impose penalty of withholding pension as a measure of punishment either in whole or in part permanently or for a specified period because pension is not in the nature of reward but there is a binding obligation on Government which can be claimed as a right. Their forfeiture is only on resignation, removal or dismissal from service. After a pension is sanctioned its continuance depends on future good conduct, but it cannot be stopped or reduced for other reasons. Neither in the article of charges nor in the statement of misconduct in support of the article of charges nor in the inquiry report nor in the disciplinary authoritys order or the appellate order, there is any whisper that the charge against the applicant was in the nature of grave misconduct. In fact, the disciplinary authoritys order is absolutely a non speaking order containing no reasons for imposing the penalty of 10% cut in pension for four years upon the applicant.
17. Another aspect of this case is that the charge against the applicant that while he was processing the cases of Expendable Housing Scheme-1995, dealt with 48 files and processed for restoration of allotment in violation of the terms and conditions of the brochure but it was clearly stipulated that the allotment shall be cancelled and the deposits will be forfeited if the request of the cancellation was not made within stipulated period. The 48 cases were processed without any proper scrutiny at his level. Out of 48 flats, 43 flats were purchased by one Sh. Raju Chawla (property dealer), whose agents had purchased the original registration papers/documents related to sale/purchase of these flats. But in its findings, Inquiry Officer has stated that the charged officer Shri K.L. Prashar would not have done so without having received some gratification for such an act. In fact, no one would do so without any personal interest, it may be in any shape. Though no evidence has been produced before me by the prosecution that the property dealers had in fact given some kind of bribe to the C.O. but I hold the view that the evidence recorded by the CBI officials has much substance and it has to be relied upon. The aforesaid observation of the Inquiry Officer was admittedly without any evidence. As held by the Apex Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Jain (AIR 1969 SC 983), suspicion or presumptions cannot take the place of proof, even in a domestic inquiry.
18. In the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, we allow this O.A. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary/appellate authorities in the disciplinary case against the applicant are quashed and set aside. We direct the respondents to restore the reduced pension and pay the arrears to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. They shall also pass appropriate orders in this regard, under intimation to the applicant within the aforesaid period of time. No costs.
(SUDHIR KUMAR) (G. GEROGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
`SRD