Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dharam Pal Kherwa vs M/O Communications on 14 February, 2025
1
Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 566/2017
Reserved on: 24.01.2025
Pronounced on: 14.02.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Dharam Pal Kherwa S/o Jethu Ram, aged 68 years
Group A, Senior Supdt of Post Offices, Karnal Division (Retired)
now resident of H. No. 29, Amarpuri,
Sasoli Road, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana ... Applicant
(By Advocate: - Mr. Hardik Giri, Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Mr. Sonit
Sinhmar)
Versus
Union of India through Secretary
Ministry of Commuications & IT
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110 001 ... Respondent
(By Advocate: - Mr. R. K. Sharma)
2
Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present OA filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the OA has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(a) To issue appropriate order/direction to quash the impugned order dated 06.09.2016.
(b) To restore his pension and further to direct the respondents to pay his gratuity and pension with 20% interest with compound interest form due date till payment.
(c) To pass such other or further order/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant, who joined service on 01.09.1969, became eligible for full pension on 01.09.1999 but continued working until his retirement on 31.05.2008. Despite his conviction on 14.06.2010, he was paid full provisional pension until 31.08.2016. No action was taken against him until 12.05.2015, when a memorandum notice was issued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, year 2014 was written on the memorandum instead of year 2015 inadvertently therefore, on pointing out of the aforesaid mistake Asstt. Director General (Vig-II) rectified the year from 2014 to 2015 and has intimated to consider the memorandum notice dated 12.05.2015 instead of 12.05.2014.
3. Impugned order of stoppage of his 100% monthly pension on permanent basis and withholding of 100% gratuity admissible to 3 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 him was passed on 06.09.2016 in the name of President and it was signed by Hemant Kumar Assist. Director General (Vig-II).The final order, stopping 100% of his pension and gratuity, was issued on 06.09.2016. The applicant has challenged this order through the present OA.
SUBMISSION MADE BY RESPONDENTS
4. The respondents have filed their counter reply on 10.08.2017 wherein they have stated that the present application is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of it not being covered under any law for the time-being in force. They state that under the provisions of Rule 9 (2) (a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, proceedings, if any pending, at the time of retirement of Government servant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, will be continued and decided under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The rule is reproduced herein as under: -
"The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:"
5. The respondents further state that under the provision of Rule 9 (6) (a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the Government servant has been placed under suspension. In the 4 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 instant case, the applicant was under deemed suspended w.e.f. 01.12.2006 vide Presidential order dated 18.12.2006. The rule is reproduced as under: -
"(6) For the purpose of this rule, -
(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charge is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and"
6. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant has concealed the fact that he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f 01.12.2006, which proves that the disciplinary action was initiated from the date of his suspension. It is further contended that the final order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-A/1) was issued in continuation of disciplinary action after adopting due procedure, and thus, the same cannot be termed as unconstitutional and deserves to be upheld.
7. The respondents also state that in the pleadings, the applicant has challenged the authority of President with regard to withholding of pension under the provisions of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, whereas, the President reserves the right to withhold pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or part. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are statutory in nature. There is nothing under Article 351-A of Constitution of India which may restrict the right of President in withholding of pension. It is further contended that under the provisions of Article 361 (1) of the 5 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 Constitution of India, the President is not answerable to any Court for the exercise of powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties.
8. In rejoinder filed by the applicant on 20.11.2017, the applicant reiterates the prayer made in the pleadings. The applicant makes a reference to Rule 9 (2) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which prohibits from initiating any action after lapse of 4 years period which reads as under:-
"2(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President.
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four year before such institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service."
9. The applicant also states that the Govt. of India has adopted new pension scheme, namely, National Pension Scheme for the employees of Govt. of India w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and in case of those employees of Govt. of India recruited on or after 01.01.2004 no provision has been provided/kept for withholding of said pension and therefore, a discrimination has been made qua the employees 6 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 recruited before 01.01.2004 and those recruited after 01.01.2004 in the Govt. of India. It is further necessary to mention here that as a matter of fact the applicant has been appointed in Indian Postal Services Group -A vide order dated 13.01.2006 (Annexure- A/3) and he took over the formal charge of the said post on 19.01.2006 and, therefore, as a matter of fact he is a promotee in Indian Postal Services Group-A after 01.01.2004 and thus, he has been discriminated qua those recruited directly in the service on or after 01.01.2004. Even the Indian Postal Services Group-A officers appointed after 01.01.2004 are governed under the National Pension Scheme and in their case there is no provision to withhold their pension etc. admissible to them under the said scheme. Rule 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as amended vide notification dated 30.12.2003 reads as under:-
"2. Application Save as otherwise provided in these rules, these rules shall apply to Government servants appointed on or before the 31st day of December, 2003] including villain Government servants in the Defense Services, pointed substantively to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union which are borne on pensionable establishments, but shall not apply to-
(a) railway servants;
(b) persons in casual and daily -rated employment;
(c) persons paid from contingencies;
(d) persons entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund;
(e) members of the All India Services;
(f) persons locally recruited for service in diplomatic, consular or other Indian establishments in foreigncountries;7
Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017
(g) persons employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise; and
(h) persons whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by or under the provisions of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force."
10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the submissions made by them.
ANALYSIS
11. The applicant joined service under the respondents on 01.09.1969. He retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2008. The applicant, while working as SSPOs Karnal Division (Haryana Circle) was caught red handed, by the CBI, while accepting an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and a blanket as bribe from one Shri Raj Kumar, Postal Assistant, Patti Kalyana SO and complainant for bestowing undue favour to the complainant for considering his transfer from Patti Kalyana SO (Distt. Panipat) to Nilokheri SO (Distt.Karnal), and also for cancelling the orders of his dies-non period.
12. The applicant was arrested by the CBI on 01.12.2006 at Karnal and produced before the CBI Court, Ambala on 02.12.2006. Due to his detention in custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 01.12.2006 vide order dated 18.12.2006. The suspension was continued from time to time upto his retirement as he continuously remained under custody upto 8 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 16.07.2012. He retired from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2008.
13. The case was registered by the CBI, Chandigarh under the FIR No. RCCHG2006A0033 dated 01.12.2006. The Charge sheet was filed by the CBI on 28.06.2007. Considering his detention under custody for more than 48 hours by CBI w.e.f. 01.12.2006, the President had accorded Prosecution sanction dated 20.06.2007 u/s 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecuting the applicant under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988. Learned Special Judge (CBI), Ambala vide judgment dated 14.06.2010 convicted the applicant, under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in criminal offence. He was awarded punishment to undergo imprisonment for three years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and six months with a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988, and in default of payment of fine, was to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. However, the sentences in default of payment of fine would run conjointly. 9
Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017
14. In this case, the criminal trial culminated into conviction of the applicant and after following the procedure of consultation etc., the Presidential Order imposing penalty on the applicant was issued on 06.09.2016 (Annexure-A/1) imposing the penalty. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: -
"11. Having regard to all the aspects relevant to the case with due application of mind and considering the gravity of the proven misconduct, the President, i.e. the Disciplinary Authority on his behalf the Minister of State for Communications (Independent Charge) in the instant case, is of the opinion that the delinquent officer's retention in service would have not been desirable had he been in service and accepted the reasoned and cogent advice of UPSC that since the said Shri Dharam Pal Kherwa is retired, ends of justice would be met if a penalty of "withholding of 100% (hundred percent) of the monthly pension, otherwise admissible to C. O. on a permanent basis, and further the withholding of 100% (hundred percent) of gratuity admissible to him" is imposed on the CO, Shri D. P. Kherwa The President orders accordingly. (By order and in the name of the President)."
15. The orders were challenged by the applicant before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The Hon'ble High Court had reduced the punishment. However, the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana is not filed as pleadings by the parties, though it is stated to be annexed as R-5.
16. The disciplinary proceedings against the applicant continued. Respondents contended that Rule 9 (2) (a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, lays down that the proceedings, if any, pending at the time of retirement of Government servant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 will be continued and decided under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The relevant rule has 10 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 already been reproduced in Para 4 above. Further, as mentioned in para 5 above, Rule 9 (6) (a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, lays down that the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the Government servant has been placed under suspension. In the instant case, the applicant was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 01.12.2006 vide the Presidential order dated 18.12.2006, and the suspension continued till his retirement.
17. The case was processed further for Regular Disciplinary action against the applicant under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The charge sheet for departmental action was issued on 25.02.2010. The Inquiry Officer submitted Inquiry Report after conclusion of the inquiry on 23.03.2015, holding the charge as proved against the applicant. A copy of inquiry report was supplied to the applicant to submit his version on the findings of Inquiry Officer on 12.05.2015. He submitted his representation on 24.06.2015. The departmental proceeding against the applicant as per Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was also concluded and after the inquiry, charges were held proved and the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the President of India, after following the prescribed procedure, vide order dated 24.05.2018 imposed a penalty of withholding of 100% (hundred percent) of the monthly pension, otherwise admissible to applicant on a permanent basis, and 11 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 further withholding of 100% (hundred percent) of gratuity admissible to him. For facility of reference, the relevant paras i.e. paras 6 to 8 are quoted as under: -
"6. And whereas a penalty of "withholding of 100% (hundred percent) of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to C.O. on a permanent basis, and further the withholding of 100% (hundred percent) of gratuity admissible to him" has been imposed on the CO, Shri D. P. Kherwa, vide this Department's Order of even number dated 06.09.2016 which is in currency. The said penalty was imposed upon the said Shri D.P. Kherwa on the advice dated 29.01.2016 of UPSC in reference to his conviction in the CBI Court.
7. Having considered all the aspects relevant to the case, the gravity of the proven misconduct and the reasoned and cogent advice of UPSC dated 29.02.2016, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Minister of State for Communications (Independent Charge) on behalf of the President is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met in this case if a penalty of "withholding of 100% (hundred percent) of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to C. O. on a permanent basis, and further the withholding of 100% (hundred percent) of gratuity admissible to him" is imposed on the C.O., Shri D. P. Kherwa. The President orders accordingly.
8. The President further orders that both the penalties as mentioned in para 6 & 7 above shall run concurrently.
(By order and in the name of the President)"
18. The Presidential order dated 06.09.2016 was passed in the wake of conviction order dated 14.06.2010 of Learned Special Judge (CBl), Ambala for his criminal misconduct after following the procedures as laid down under Rule 19 (i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 read with Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, whereas, the second Presidential order dated 24.05.2018 has been issued imposing penalty upon the applicant in connection with charges proved against him in the regular departmental action (RDA) initiated against him under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 12
Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 Both the above-mentioned Presidential orders dated 06.09.2016 and 24.05.2018, respectively were issued after consultation with the UPSC and after following due procedure. The applicant was not awarded the penalty of dismissal as contended by him. Penalty of dismissal from service can only be awarded to the serving govt. servant, whereas, the applicant had retired from service at the time of imposition of said penalties. M.A. No. 3254/2018 was filed by the applicant for placing on record additional document order dated 24.05.2018 vide which the applicant was again dismissed from service.
19. It is relevant to mention that para 11 of the impugned order dated 06.09.2016 and para 7 of the order of punishment passed vide order dated 24.05.2018 are similar and the same punishment has been passed by the second order. The Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the employee under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 need to be taken to a logical conclusion and said logical conclusion is reached when either the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the employee is dropped or after following the due procedure, penalty is imposed upon the employee in this case the charges framed against the applicant were proved and the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty as mentioned in above para vide order dated 06.09.2016. In view of 13 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 the above, the order issued by the Disciplinary Authority is a valid order.
20. In the Civil Appeal Nos. 763-68 of 2014, in the matter of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited Vs. Girish V. and Others decided on 21.01.2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no legal bar to conduct disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial simultaneously. For facility of reference, it would be relevant to mentioned para 9 to 16 and 19 of the judgement which read as under: -
"9. In A. P. SRTCvs. Mohd. Yousuf Miyan (1997) 2 SCC 699, this Court declared that the purpose underlying departmental proceedings is distinctly different from the purpose behind prosecution of offenders for commission of offences by them. While criminal prosecution for an offence is launched for violation of a duty that the offender owes to the society, departmental enquiry is aimed at maintaining discipline and efficiency in service. The difference in the standard of proof and the application of the rules of evidence to one and inapplicability to the other was also explained and highlighted only to explain that conceptually the two operate in different spheres and are intended to serve distinctly different purposes.
10. The relatively recent decision of this Court in Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442, is a timely reminder of the principles that are applicable in such situations succinctly summed up in the following words:
"(i) There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously.
(ii) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law.
(iii) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.14
Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017
(iv) Departmental Proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common."
11. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Capt. M Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd, (1999) 3 SCC 679 where this Court reviewed the case law on the subject to identify the following broad principles for application in the facts and circumstances of a given case:
"(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honor may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest."
12. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry (2005) 10 SCC 471 the respondent was charged with possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The question was whether disciplinary proceedings should remain stayed pending a criminal charge being examined by the competent criminal Court. Allowing the appeal of the employer-corporation this Court held:
"A crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the 15 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of a grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law..... Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defense at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances."
(emphasis supplied)
13. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject for the legal position as emerging from the above pronouncements and the earlier pronouncements of this Court in a large number of similar cases is well settled that disciplinary proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously in the absence of any legal bar to such simultaneity. It is also evident that while seriousness of the charge leveled against the employees is a consideration, the same is not by itself sufficient unless the case also involves complicated questions of law and fact. Even when the charge is found to be serious and complicated questions of fact and law that arise for consideration, the Court will have to keep in mind the fact that departmental proceedings cannot be suspended indefinitely or delayed unduly.
14. In Paul Anthony (supra) this Court went a step further to hold that departmental proceedings can be resumed and proceeded even when they may have been stayed earlier in cases where the criminal trial does not make any headway.
15. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. B.K.Meena 1996(6) SCC 417, where this Court reiterated that there was no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously unless there is a likelihood of the employee suffering prejudice in the criminal trial. What is significant is that the likelihood of prejudice itself is hedged by providing that not only should the charge be grave but even the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Stay of proceedings at any rate cannot and should not be a matter of course. The following passage is in this regard apposite:
"14. ...there is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously and then say that in certain situations, it may not be 'desirable', 'advisable' or 'appropriate' to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry when a criminal case is pending on identical charges. The staying of disciplinary proceedings, is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rules can enunciated in that behalf. The only ground suggested in the above questions as constitution a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceedings is that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. This ground has, 16 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 however, been hedged in by providing further that this may be done in cases of grave nature involving questions of fact and law. In our respectful opinion, it means that not only the charges must be grave but that the case must involve complicated questions of law and fact. Moreover, 'advisability', 'desirability' or 'propriety', as the case may be, has to be determined in each case taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case. While it is not possible to enumerate the various factors, for and against the stay of disciplinary proceedings, we found it necessary to emphasize some of the important considerations in view of the fact that very often the disciplinary proceedings are being stayed for long periods pending criminal proceedings. Stay of disciplinary proceedings cannot be, and should not be, a matter of course. All the relevant factors, for and against, should be weighed and a decision taken keeping in view the various principles laid down in the decisions referred to above.
15. ... Indeed, in such cases, it is all the more in the interest of the charged officer that the proceedings are expeditiously concluded. Delay in such cases really works against him."
(emphasis supplied)
16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defense before the criminal Court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The Court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The Court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the on-going disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees.
19. In the circumstances and taking into consideration all aspects mentioned above as also keeping in view the fact that all the three Courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings, we do not consider it fit to vacate the said order straightaway. Interests of justice would, in our opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the Court dealing with the criminal charges against the respondents to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but in any case within a period of one year from the date of this order. We hope and trust that the Trial Court will take effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are served, appear and are examined. The Court may for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than a fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary. We also expect the accused in the 17 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 criminal case to co-operate with the trial Court for an early completion of the proceedings. We say so because experience has shown that trials often linger on for a long time on account of non- availability of the defense lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses or on account of adjournments sought by them on the flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be avoided. In case, however, the trial is not completed within the period of one year from the date of this order, despite the steps which the Trial Court has been directed to take the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondents shall be resumed and concluded by the Inquiry Officer concerned. The impugned orders shall in that case stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order."
21. The applicant has stated that he was appointed in the Indian Postal Service, Group-'A' on 13.01.2006 (Annexure-A/3), therefore, he is eligible to draw pension under 'New Pension Scheme' as those recruited directly to the Indian Postal Service Group-'A' and appointed on or after 01.01.2004 to the said service are governed under the 'National Pension Scheme' and in their case there is no provision to withhold their pension etc. admissible to them under the said scheme. The above contention of the applicant is not tenable as he himself has stated in his pleadings that he was appointed in the Department of Posts on 01.09.1969 and continued working until his retirement on 31.05.2008. He was convicted on 14.06.2010 and thereafter the matter was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Taking cognizance of the conviction of the applicant in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority i.e. the President of India passed final order in the case of applicant only on 06.09.2016 imposing punishment of withholding of 100% (hundred percent) of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to 18 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 the applicant on a permanent basis, and further the withholding of 100% (hundred percent) of gratuity admissible to him. This order dated 06.09.2016 of the disciplinary authority was imposed upon the applicant, on the advice of the UPSC, in reference to his conviction in the CBI Court does not have any infirmity and is tenable.
22. In this case, first, criminal trial has happened in which charges against the applicant were proved and a penalty was imposed by the President of India on 06.09.2016 (Annexure-A/1) and subsequently disciplinary proceedings were completed and the competent authority i.e. the President of India, imposed punishment on 24.05.2018. It was made clear in the order dated 24.05.2018 that both the penalties as mentioned in para 6 and 7 shall rum concurrently and para 6 of the order ibid merely contains the nature of penalty imposed on the applicant on 06.09.2016.
23. As per Para 8 of the OA, the applicant has sought quashing of impugned order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-A/1). As stated above, the abovementioned Presidential order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-A/1) is issued after completion of Criminal Trial against the applicant in which he was held guilty, there is no infirmity in the said order. It is incidental that, in the meanwhile, second Presidential order dated 24.05.2018 was passed which has 19 Item No. 07/C-II OA No. 566/2017 been placed by the parties in the pleadings of this matter, however, this order is not under challenge in the present OA.
24. In view of above, we hold that the Original Application is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.
25. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No Order to cost.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/