Karnataka High Court
Sri. Y L Srinivas Bhat vs The Under Secretary on 24 June, 2019
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.24096 OF 2018 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
Sri.Y.L. Srinivas Bhat,
S/o. Lakshminarayana Bhat,
Aged about 72 years,
R/at "Srinilaya" 75-76,
Kallahalli, Vinobhanagar,
Shimoga -577201.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Raghavendra K., Advocate)
AND:
1. The Under Secretary to
the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance of
Revenue Central Board of
Direct Taxes, North Block,
New Delhi -110001.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, 1st Floor,
2
Nandigudda Road,
Attavara, Mangalore -575 001.
... Respondents
(By Sri. B. Pramod, CGC)
This Writ Petition is filed under the Articles 226 & 227 of
Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated
13.03.2014 passed by the first respondent as per Annexure -A1
and quash the order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the Second
respondent vide Annexure-A2.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
day, Narayana Swamy J., made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the first respondent in F.No.C-14011/25/2005-V&L and also sought to quash the order dated 04.02.2015 passed by the second respondent, under Rule 9 of CCS (PENSION) Rules 1972 read with Rule 15 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
2. When the petitioner was in service, he has been issued with a charge sheet by framing articles of charges on the ground that he has failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a 3 Government Servant, thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.
3. After concluding the enquiry, he was punished with withholding 25% of monthly regular pension for a period of 5 years under Rule 9 of CCS (PENSION) Rules 1972.
4. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which has partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner modifying the order dated 13.03.2014 and 04.02.2015 by withholding 25% of the monthly pension, otherwise admissible to the applicant, for a period of 2 years instead of 5 years under Rule 9 CCS (PENSION) Rules 1972 against which this writ petition is filed before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was in service he has been issued notice to give reasons for specific allegations made against him that while he was serving in various departments and capacities he had 4 invested in shares in his name and in the name of his wife/sons, in the year 1992 for a sum of Rs.30,180/-. Subsequently, the respondent issued charges against him on 06.09.2005 without considering the explanation given by the petitioner in the year 1992.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Tribunal though noticed the facts that the charge memo issued only in September 2005 and the respondents have taken their own time to examine the matter and for issuance of charge memo, failed to consider that the respondents have taken again the petitioner for the same job after two years and at the fag end of his retirement. Secondly, it is submitted that Rule 9(1) CCS does not permit to impose such a penalty.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents supports the order passed by the first respondent and sought to dismiss the petition. It is also submitted that it is the duty of the petitioner to explain the source of income for 5 investing in shares. But he has failed to explain the source of income for investing in shares to the Court. Rs.1,11,750/- is the unexplained amount which attracts the imposition of penalty under the provisions of Rule 9(1) of CCS Rules. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an income tax officer. It was his duty to disclose and explain each and every source of income for investing in any shares for which he has to obtain permission from the respondents.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is true that the impugned order has been passed under Rule 9 CCS (PENSION) Rules 1972. This Rule could be invoked by the President of India, who has got right to impose penalty. In this case Rule 9 was invoked by the respondents which reads as follows:
"9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension (1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering 6 recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement.
Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of (Rupees Three thousand five hundred) per mensem."
9. We have gone through the Rules, which has been produced before the Tribunal. Two charges have been framed against the petitioner and both the charges are alike in nature.
10. The Tribunal has failed to consider Rule 9 CCS (PENSION) Rules 1972 and power of the respondents to withhold 25% of the monthly pension admissible to the petitioner for a period of 5 years, which has been reduced to 2 7 years by the Tribunal. There is an inordinate delay in issuing articles of charges. For an incident which is stated to be of the year 1992, reply was submitted but the respondents took time up to 2005 to issue articles of charges at the fag end of service of the petitioner, which is not proper. The Tribunal rightly pointed out that the penalty is too harsh. Instead of quashing the impugned orders, the Tribunal has erred in modifying the orders.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BVK