Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Dnyaneshwar Kondbaji Mahajan vs Employees Providend Fund Organisation ... on 23 November, 2023
OWA No, 2299/9018, CENTRAL, ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI. ORIGINAL APPLICATION No, 2239 of 2018, ORIGINAL APPLIC Order Reserved on 24th August, 2023, Order Pronounced on 23" November, 2023. Hon'ble Justice Shri. M.G, Sewlikar, Member Gh Hon' ble Dr, Bhagwan Sahai, Member (A) > L. Doyaneshwar S/y Rondbaji Mahajan, aged d 63 years, Occupation: Pensioner, R/O," 30, Radhakrishna Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-4400034, -Applicant (Mr B. Lahiri, Advocate) VERSUS 1. Union of India, through, Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Dethi-110001, 2, Central PR. Commissioner, EPF O-Head Office, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. 3. Regional PR Comiisfoner-1, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur-440000. ~Respondents (Mr. D.S. Lamba t, Advacate) O.A. No, 3298/0078, Per : Hon'ble Justice Shri, M.C. Sewlikar, Member (J)
ORDER, Challenge in this OA is to the order dated 8° January, 2018 con- fined by the Appellate Authority by Hs order dated 16% daly, 2018 by which the punishment of penalty of 20 % cut in pension for a period of 0S Years is imposed upon the applicant.
Ld, Facts leading to this OA in brief are that the applicant was appointed as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) in Regional Office, Bandra, Mumbai from November, 20160 to October, 2012. During this pe- riod, he was allotted the work of 10 Accounts Groups comprising of 6 DA * 1 SS in each group and 05 AOs for every 02 Accounts Groups. New soft- ware application for processing of accounts and claims was implemented in the Regional Office, Bandra, Murmbai from January, 2011. Out of 10 Ac. counts Groups, in Group No. 9, the incident of settlement of fraudulent claim took place, It was prepared, received and processed by the Dealing Assistant (DA) Shri. B.D. Pawaskar, 1.2. The incident of faud took place on 18" May, 2012. Due to involve- ment of the huge amount, the recipient ICIC] Bank had certain doubts and, therefore, inquired about the factual position from SBIVEPFO. Thereupon, fraud committed by Shri. BLD. Pawaskar wag detected. When the fraud was detected, Shri. BLD. Pawaskar tendered his confession in writing admitting G.A. No. sge2/a018, Memorandum of charge was served upon the applicant on 13% May, SEE 2015 under Rule 16 of EPP Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971. The applicant was charged for his failure to safeguard his login ID and password which en- abled Shri. B.D. Pawaskar to submit a fraudulent claim in respect of Smit. M.S. Mankar bearing PP. Account No. MH/O185/28 and processed and set- tled it for an amount of Rs. 3,30,81,585/-, Claim was sanctioned and pay- ment was made through NEFT to the wife of Shri. B.D, Pawaskar. The ane plicant denied the charges levelled against him. The Inguiry Officer con- ducted full-fledged inguiry and concluded that the alleged charge levelled against the applicant was not proved and accordingly exonerated the appli- cant.
1A. Disciplinary Authonty did not agree with the report of the Inquiry Officer and recorded a Disagreement Note. The applicant replied to the said disagreement note rebutting all the allegations made in the disagree- ment note. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, imposed the penalty on the applicant as stated above. The applicant retired on 31% December, 2015.
'3. The applicant preferred appeal against the said order which came to be dismissed by the order dated 16 July, 2018. This order is impugned in this OA.
1.6. Respondent No. 2 filed tts reply contending therein that the appli-
4> 8s sNAe (S keesy 3) fra oD é \. No, g2u0/2o18 {Ace cant was allotted 10 Accounts Groups and in Group 9 the settlement of udulent claim took place, Shri. B.D. Pawaskar himself had settled the counts) could not safi claim by using the user 1D and password of D.A. (Inward), SS and APFC OLY ara ounis} of the relevant period. DA (Inward), SS, AO and APFC (Ac- Peua < their LD. and password which resulted in the settlement of fraudulent claim to the extent of Rs. 3,30,81,585/- by Shri. B.D. Pawaskar, Sr. SSA. It is further contended that ZVD (WY) in their re-
port dated 28" May, 2014 has stated that Shri. BLD. Pawaskar, working in } ¥ A.G. 9 of Regional Office, Bandra had submitted a fraudulent claim him-
self and settled the fraudulent claim of Rs. 3.31/- Crores and sanctioned the Bank, This fraudu claim through NEFT in his wife's bank account maintained with ICICI lent claim came to the notice of the respondents when the SBI officials sought confirmation from Shri. LG. Kajrekar, APFC (Cash) regarding the correctness of the EPF Settlement amount of Rs, 3.31% crores transferred to ICICI Bank. On verification it was found that the PF account had already been settled long back and there w said account. Since the payment was said to he as no balance in the fraudulent, immediate in-
structions to stop payment were issued and payment of the said ated a false member's/ anoint was halted. On verification it was found that Shri. B.D. Pawasker had cre-
subscriber's ledger account in the name of his wife, Shri. B.D. Pawaskar made false and fictition Rs. 3,05,45,2684/- in the fraudulent member's [D. AN sentry and credited amount of these transactions O.4, No. s99e/a018.
were done by Mr. B.D. Pawaskar himself. He processed the claim Form 19 S ' | af : _ .. a 5 s 4 » .
z } for settlement and updated the accounts upto April, 2012 with interest and oe prepared worksheet for settlement of the account of Rs. 3,36,81,585/-.
i.7. In his confession he has stated that he had seen the passwords of SS, AO & APFC without any intention sometime back while doing some work. It is alleged that due to the negligence on the part of the APFC (applicant) that Shri. B.D, Pawaskar could commit fraud of Rs. 3,30,81 3845/-. There- fore, Inquiry was initiated against the applicant and he was accordingly charged and sentence was pronounced against him.
18. The applicant was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. The Disci- plinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Ingtury Officer and recorded a disagreement note which was served on the applicant. Opportu- nity of hearing was given to the applicant. After hearing the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment as indicated abave, Lo. Applicant filed rejoinder in which he contended that hewas not neg- ligent while using the password. Shri. B.D. Pawaskar himself had stated in his confession that system had its flaws. He took advantage of those flaws and committed the alleged fraud. It is incomprehensible te assume that all the officers Le. DA (inward), SS, AO and APFC {Accounts} were at the same time negligent in using the password. Software audit has still not heen done in the Regional Office, Bandra, Mumbai right from the date of its installation Le. from January, 2011. The system is susceptible to manip-
O.4. No. 2292/an18, ulation. Disagreement note was issued after a lapse of more than one year and half.
OZ. We have heard Mr. B. Lahiri, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D.S, Lambat, learned counsel for the respondents.
2.1. Leamed counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant did not exhibit any negligence in handling and using the password. He had to deal with entire clerical staff. Shri. BLD. Pawaskar in his confession admit- ted that system had its flaws, No software sudit was done after its install. ment Hl the incident took place. The inference drawn by the competent au- thority that the applicant was negligent in using the password is a perverse finding as it has no basis. It cannot be assumed unless there is some evi- dence to show that the applicant was negligent in using the password, Sim- ply because Shri. B.D. Pawaskar used the password, does not lead to the automatic inference that the applicant was negligent in using the password. He submitted that it is beyond one's comprehension that all the officers would be negligent in handling the password, 2.2. He further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and recorded a disagreement note. In the disagreement note, the Disciplinary Authority virtually pro-.
nounced the applicant guilty.
2.3, While recording the disagreement note and pronouncing the. appli-
OA. No. 2220/2028, cant guilty, the applicant was not heard. Therefore, this amounts to breach =. s * ' . e : ~ < : opts oe = "| of principles of natural justice and, therefore, inquiry gets vitiated. It not ~ only pronounced the applicant guilty but it imposed the punishment also.
a The applicant was not heard before recording the disagreement note of this nalure and, therefore, principles of natural justice have been breached, For this purpose, he placed reliance on DoPT's Memorandum No. FP. No. L812 2/2010-Estt! (A) dated 12° November, 2010. He also placed re-
lance on following cases:
(OPunjab National Bank And Others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra, (£998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 84.
(fi) Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Mekarashira and Another, (£999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 739.
24. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the confession of shri. B.D. Pawaskar gives a clear indication that the applicant was negli- gent in using the password. The purport of the confession of Shri. B.D. Pawaskar shows that he had seen the applicant using the password. It was expected of the applicant being 4 high-ranking officer to safeguard the password. He was expected to use the password when no one was around him, When he used the password in the presence of Shri. BD. Pawaskar, that gave opportunity to Shri. B.D. Pawaskar to see the password. This clearly indicates that the applicant was negligent in using the password, It is the contention of the applicant that system had its flaws. However, which O.A. No. 2230 /o0i8, flaws the system had, has not been explained by the applicant. Therefore, merely mentioning that system had its flaws will not serve the purpose. He further contended that the Disciplinary Authority did mention that the ap- plicant was guilty and had suggested penalty also. Moreover, Opportunity of hearing was given ic the applicant. Therefore, principles of natural fus- tice were followed and for this reason the authorities relied upon by the ap-
plicant has no basis.
2.5. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective sides.
2.6. The entire case of the respondents hinges on the confession of Shri. B.D. Pawaskar. In his confession he made following statements:
"Qn 18.03, 2012, a demon took aver née, unMentionaliy [ processed a claim in the name of my wife and while pro- cessing the said claim used the fog in ids af Section Su- perviser, devounts Officer and Assistant Provident F ied Commissioner The System has its Flaws. f had seen their passwords without any intentions sometime back while doing some work, the establishment and the office staf dant have any role in the above mistake. I am extremely sorry for what t have done ax I was aut of my mind, and nor know- fag what f was doing. } think some bad powers were heading my mind at that time. Otherwise I would Rave not done such a big mistake.
2.7, From the confession of Mr. B.D. Pawaskar, it is clear that he has taken upon himself the entire blarne. He states in his confession that entire fraud was done by him alone and none of the officers including the appli-
cant was responsible for the fraud. The respondents are relying on one O.A, No. seeo/ani8, statement of Shri. B.D. Pawaskar's confession to the effect that he had seen passwords of the applicant and other officers without any intention while doing some work. The Inquiry Officer observed that Shri. B.D. Pawaskar uses the password of not only the applicant but SS and AC as well for his - fraudulent activity. The Inquiry Oficer further observed that it does not Stand to reason that the $8, AO and the applicant had simultaneously failed to safeguard the passwords and inadvertently revealed their passwards to Shri. B.D. Pawaskar. Password consists of special characters, some are tup- per cass, some are mumericals. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that a password can be decoded by anyone just by watching him use the pass- word, Moreover, in his confessian he does not say that the applicant and other two officers had used their passwords in his presence. He only says that he had seen their passwords while doing some work. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant had shared the password with Shri. B.D. Pawaskar. Therefore, it is only on the assumption that the Disci- plinary Authority had concluded that the applicant was negligent in wing the password. In addition to this, the Disciplinary Authority breached the principles of natural justice while recording disagreement note, In the dis- agreement note, the Disciplinary Authority after recording reasons has pro- nounced the applicant guilty by making following observations in para 4 which are quoted for facility of reference hereunder:
"4. After considering the facts of the case, anil inquiry 10 U.A. No, se22/2018.
Keport, the Competent Authority disagree with the find. ings of the Inensiry Officer and as such this is a FE cave Jor imposition of major penalty of cut in pension, ° 2.8. After considering the fhets of the case, anid Inquiry Report, the Com-
petent Authority disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and as such this is a fit case for imposition of major penalty of cut in pension.
2.9, These observations clearly indicate that while drafting disagreement note, the applicant was pronounced guilty by the competent authority and even proposed the punishment withou: hearing the applicant. As per law settled in the case of Foginathy D Bugde (supra), Disciplinary Authority has to give the delinquent hearing before recording Disagreement Note. In the case of Yosinath D. Bagde (supra). in para 31, 34, 35, 36 & 37, Supreme Court held thus:
"SE. dit view of the above, a delinguent employee has the right of heaving not only duriag the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer into the charges levelled against him but alse al the staze at which those Jindings ave considered by the Disciplinary A utherity and the latter namely, the Disciplinary Authority. forins @ tenative opinion that if daes nat agree wih the findings recorded by the Eng wiry Officer. Jf the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are in favour of the delinguent and if has been held thay the charges are nor Proved, if is all the more Necessary fo give ay opportunity of hearing to fhe delinguent emplayee hefare reversing those fineings. The formation of oninian should be femative and nat Jinal If is ae this Slage tat the delinguent enylavee should be given an opportunity of hearing afer ke jy informed of the reasans an the basis of whieh the Disciplinary Authority hay Proposed to disagree with the Jindings of the Enquy Offcer, This is in consonance WHR the requirement of Article 371£2} ofthe Constitution as if provides that @ person shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank excep! afer an enguiry in whieh he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. So lang as a fnal decision is nog taken In the matter, the enquiry shall be deemed to be pending. Mere submission af Nadings ta the Disciplinary Authority does not bring about the closure of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings wauld come to an end only when the findings have heen considered by the Disciplinary Autharity and the charges are elther held ta be not proved or found ta be praved and ia that event punishment is inflicted upon the delinquent. Thet being sd, the "right to be heard" would be available to the delinguent up ie the Anal stage. This right being a constitutional right of the emplayee cannot he taken away by any legislative enactment or Service Rude incl ding Rules made under Apticle 309 of the Constinution 34, Along with the show-cause notice, a copy of the Hindings recorded by the Enguiry Officer as alsa the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Committee jor disagrecing with those findings were communicated to the appellant but it was inunaterial as he was required to show-canse only against the punishment praposed by the Disciplinary Committee which had ready taken a Snel decision that the charges against fhe appellant were proved, Ef was not indicated fo him that the Disciplinary Commitiee had come only to a "tentative" decision and that he could show eause against that too. It was for this reason thet the reply submitted by the appellant Jotled ia Jind favour with the Disciplinary Committee.
43. Since the Disciplinary Comititiee did not ive. opporhunity of hearing ta the appellant before faking a Final decision in the matter relating ta findings on the avo charges framed against him, the principles of natural justice, as laid dowa by a fnree-Judge Bench of this Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Auny Behari Atishra, (1998) ? SCC 84 = AIR 1998 SC 27] 3, referred to above, were violated $6. Mr Harish N. Salve. learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has contended that the disciplinary proceedings come to an end elther wher the delinquent is exonerated of the charges or when punistoment is inflicted upon him an charges being proved. Sinee in the instant case, the Disciplinary Committee had given an Gppertaaty af hearing to the ton igs O.A. No, as23/2018.
appellant before finally reconunending ta the Stare Government to dismiss hin: from service, the principles af natural justice were fully complied with and that too at a Stage earlier than the stage when the curtain was Finally brought dawn on the Proceedings. He contended tht not only the fndines recarded b y the Enguiry Officer buf the reasons for which the Disciplinary Committee had nat agreed with these findings, were commnunicated to the appellant te whom a notice was alsa issued fo show- cause why he he uot dismissed from service. He farther contended that the appellant subinitted a reply in whieh he attacked the reasons for whieh the Disciplinary Committee had decided to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and therefore, in the given circumstances of this case, it cannot he said that there was Jatlure or denial of Opportunity al any stage,
37. The contention apparently appears toa be sound but a Hitle attention would reveal thar it Sounds like the reverberations front an empiy vessel. What is ignored by the learned counsel is thar a final decision with regard io the charges levelled against the appellant hed already been taken by the sciplinary Committee withoup broviding any opportunity of hearing to him, After having taken that decision, the memhers of the Disciplinary Committee merely issned a notice to the appellant to Show-cause aeainst the major punishment of dismissal mentioned in Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. This procedure was contrary to the law laid down dy this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank supra) in which if had been categorically provided. following earlier decisions, that if the Disciplinary Authority does nat agree with the Jindings of the Enquiry Cfficer that the charges are not proved, it has to pravide, at thar Slageé, an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent so that there may still be some room left far convincing the Disciplinary Authority that ihe findings already recorded by the Eaguiry Officer were just and proper. Post-decisional oppertunity af hearing, though available in certain cases, will be of no avail, at least, in the circumstances of the present cese."
03. In the case of Yozinath D. Ragde (supra), Supreme Court set aside the action of the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that the hearing was given to the delinquent only on proposed penalty, He was not called upon
13. OA No, seaa/aoi8, to show cause on the points on which Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the Inquiry Officer. In the case at hand also, the applicant was not called upon te give show cause on the points of disagreement recorded by the LNsciplinary Authority but only on the point of proposed penalty. Therefore, ever if the applicant gave explanation on entire aspect of the matter, that did not find favour with the Disciplinary Authority because the Disciplinary Authority had already taken a decision of holding the appli- cant guiliy and had also proposed punishment. Therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be sustained.
3.1, Moreover, This action of the competent authority is in direct viola- tion of DoPT's Memorandum dated 12" November, 2016 which reads thus:
"2. The neeessity of following the aforementioned ride 13 (2) both in letter and spirit is refterated. The cam- munication forwarding the 10% report alongwith the ten- futive reasons for disagreement, if any, seeking com- menis/representation of the Charged officer should reflect this position. AU Ministries/Departments are, therefore, requested to ensure that ihe communication forwarding 'the JO' report etc. does not cantain phrases such ag * Article of charge ix fully proved' ar | Article of charge is fully substantiated' which could be construed to mean that the disciplinary cudhority is biased even before can- sidering the representation af the charged officer and this would be against the letter and spirit af the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965,"
"
3.2. The comments made by the Disciplinary Authority clearly indicate that the Disciplinary Authority before hearing the applicant concluded that acon 7 . Beh atthe time of drafting the disagreement note. The inguiry, therefore, 14 OLA. No, aaee /aoi8, the applicant was guilty.
bed
3. From these observations of the Hon'ble supreme Court, it is clear that the competent authority has to give hearing to the delinquent before concluding that the charges are proved or before record ing the findings of = aut, 3.4. In the case at hand, the competent authority did not give any hearing to the applicant before pronouncing him guilty and proposing punishment viliated 3.5, We, therefore, deem it appropriate to allow OA No. 2222/2018. OA No. 2 222; f2018 is accordingly, allowed, Orders dated && January, 2018 and 16 faly, 2018 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are di- rected to release the pending retirement dues with interest. @ 9% per AMON, (Justice MG. Sewlikar) Member (1 oe ER is OA No.2222/2018 [ have studied again the case record and also have considered the comments / suggestions made by Member ) on my Note dated 07.09.2023 on the proposed draft order in the O.A. However, ] am unable to agree with the conclusions in the draft order i Member 0). My views in this case are as follows:
A. In this context the fact is that the Inquiry Officer did not find the charge against the applicant as proved beyond reasonable doubt. But this is not the main test based on which charges in disciplinary proceedings are to be taken as proved. The proof required beyond reasonable doubt is m case of criminal prosecution and in the disciplinary proceedings for holding a person guilty is only preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer for not holding the charge against the applicant as proved beyond reasonable doubt was not a correct view taken.
2. in this case after receipt of report of the Inquiry Officer, the Competent Authority considered the inquiry report and prepared his disagreement note in which he did mention his view of disagreeing 'with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and that it was a case deserving imposition of major punishment of cut in pension. Since the applicant had already retired on 31.12.2015, the only punishment which could have been imposed on him in 2018 was cut in his pension. But the exact amount of cut in pension and periad for it were not mentioned by the Disciplinary Authority in the disagreement note. Thus it was 36 only a tentative view. Thereafter a copy of the Inquiry report, the disagreement note and tentative view were supplied to the applicant for submitting his representation. In response, the applicant did submit his representation on 24.07.2017, Thus in this case the decision ta impose 20% cut in tae pension of the applicant for 5 years was not taken by the Competent Authority without providing the applicant with a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report as well as disagreement note for his representation.
The final decision was taken by the Competent Authority only after considering the full case record Le. feport of the Inquiry Officer, disagreement note of Competent Authority as well as the representation of the applicant and thereafter the exact amount of cut in pension as well as period i.e. 20% cut in pension for 5 years was ordered. This final decision was not the same as the tentative view and it was taken only after providing opportunity to the applicant to represent and by considering the Inquiry Officer's report, the disagreement note, tentative view of the competent autharity on proposed punishment and representation of the applicant, ° 4, | have again gone through the Supreme Court decision in respect of Yoginath Bagade Vs. State of Maharashtra dated 16.09.1999, In that case a final decision of dismissal had already been taken by the Disciplinary Committee before he was given an opportunity to represent, After this decision of the Committee, Shri Bagade was directly issued show cause notice as why not to dismiss i?
him. Report of the Inquiry Officer and reasons of the Disciplinary Committee disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not provided to him before issuing the notice for dismissal. Thus procedure adopted in that case was not exactly identical to the one foliowed in the present case. in the present case the Competent Authority had not taken the final decision on quantum of cut in pension and period for which it was to be cut before providing opportunity to the applicant. The Competent Authority had only mentioned that the findings of the Inquiry Officer could not be agreed with and it was a fit case for imposition of major penalty of cut in pension. Therefore, in my view the mention by the Competent Authority in the dissenting note about major penalty was not a final decision and it was only a tentative view. Therefore, withaut takking a hyper technical view on it, it should be treated only as a mere technicality and be ignored,
5. While deciding on the payment of interest to the applicant, the important issue even if not included in the charges js the fact of his failure as supervisory and controlling officer of Shri Pawaskar for ensuring that no opportunity was provided to Shri Pawaskar to steal his password and also his total failure to take any disciplinary action against Shri Pawaskar for the fraud committed by him. Whether the applicant at all deserves any sympathy has to be decided based on wholistic view of his conduct especially after the bank had brought to his notice facts of the payment fraudulently taken hy Shri Pawaskar.
186. The penalty was imposed on the applicant by order of Government of India in the Ministry of Labour & Employment dated 08.01.2018. This order was issued by order and in the name of the Hon'ble President of India, Thereafter the applicant submitted an appeal on 28.03.2018 before Chairman, Central Board of Trustees, EPFO for setting aside the punishment order dated 08.01.7018. However, in the present case since the punishment was imposed by - the President of India, no appeal lies against that order made by the President and, therefore, it was not treated by the Government as Mercy Petition and it was indicated to the applicant that if he is so desired he may prefer Mercy Petition. However, the applicant has not brought on record any evidence about submission of a Mercy Petition and decision thereon.
7. The respondents have also explained in the reply that the applicant was governed by the CCS Rules in which there is stipulation for consulting Union Public Service Cornmission before final orders are passed. The applicant is governed by the Employees Provident Fund _ (CCS Rules, 1972) and the charge-memo dated 13.05.2015 was issued to him under Rule 10 of EPF Staff (ccs Rules, 1972) and after his retirement on 31.12.2015, the- proceedings under Rule 410 got converted into Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, the respondents had sought first stage advice of CVC and as per the OM dated 20.01.2015, the CVC had advised for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the applicant, subsequently the CVC was further informed by letter dated 26.03.2018 about the order of 08.01.2018 by 48 the Ministry of Labour & Employment imposing the penalty of 20% cut in pension for 5 years on the applicant.
8. On considering the above reasoning, in my view the O.A. coes not have any merit as regards imposition of the penalty of 20% cut in pension for 5 years and, therefore, it should not be allowed merely based on the technicality mentioned in Para 4 above and the O.A. should be dismissed.
Member {A}.