it2025_00331 — Variation of penalty, as suggested by UPSC, in this case where the pension cut of 10% for one year has been increased to two years by authorities thus inflicting punishment for extra one year is not justified. Hence the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is set aside

Variation of penalty, as suggested by UPSC, in this case where the pension cut of 10% for one year has been increased to two years by authorities thus inflicting punishment for extra one year is not justified. Hence the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is set aside — This chunk is about a case involving an Office Surveyor who was penalized by having his pension cut after he approved a bogus bill. The Applicant challenged this penalty, arguing that it was excessiv... — Facts: The Applicant, herein who retired from the post of Office Surveyor in Survey of India was issued with a charge-sheet after an elapse of 1 year and 4 months of his retirement under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 with the approval of the President of India as provided under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by memorandum, dated 14-6-2004. The charge is that, he approved the enhanced bill of N.R. Das which was encashed by the cashier. It is seen that, the bill is a bogus one not submitted by N.R. Das. The charge against the Applicant is that, he did not maintain vigility required on the cheque Drawing and Disbursing Officer as per the responsibility entrusted on him as Head of Office. He was charge-sheeted under Rule 3 (1) (i),

(ii) and

(iii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1964. The Enquiry Officer held him guilty. Hence the Order, dated 28-9-2012 was communicated. His representation against penalty was rejected when he appealed against that order. The penalty was 10% cut in monthly pension for a period of 2 years was maintained. The Applicant challenged the penalty in Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 112 of 2008 which was dismissed. He appealed against it in High Court which by its Order, dated 6-7-2012 remanded the case back to Tribunal on the ground that the Applicant was not given a copy of the UPSC report. Hence the Applicant should be permitted to submit his representation with reference to UPSC report and thereafter final order is to be passed. A copy of the UPSC report was given to the Applicant. In Para. 4.3 of the report, it is said that the lapse / lacuna came handy to those who perpetrated the forgery / fraud subsequently, as the Cashier was enabled to pass the bill. In Para. 4.4, it is said that the issue do not suggest CO's involvement in the forgery / misappropriation. His lapse therefore seems to be sans mala fides, though serious considering it was fiscal matter. The Department of Science and Technology by its Order, dated 28-9-2012 rejected his representation for not inflicting punishment on him. That order is reproduced in the judgment. The Applicant challenged that order as there was no finding that he committed grave misconduct or negligence by the Disciplinary Authority or UPSC. Hence the decision to reduce pension is illegal and prayed for quashing the charge-sheet. He also prayed not to enforce the penalty, dated 28-9-2012 till the disposal of his OA in the CAT. CAT issued notice to Respondents herein who gave the reply justifying their action. In the rejoinder, the Applicant stated that UPSC suggested a punishment to be granted to him is only 10% cut in pension for a period of 1 year. The Applicant submitted that even this punishment suggested by UPSC is not permissible as his action cannot be said to be grave as he approved the note of Cashier who is responsible for the action. The Tribunal after hearing both sides stated that, the matter in O.A. No. 112 of 2008 had already been heard and dismissed. Hence the Bench confined itself only to the window provided by Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment, dated 6-7-2012 with regard to the Applicant not being given UPSC advice to submit his case in that light of grant of punishment. The question is, whether the Respondent applied his mind in regard to punishment of 10% cut in pension for two years when UPSC suggested 10% cut in pension for one year only. Even though the Respondents state that they followed the advice of UPSC but in reality the advise of cut in pension as suggested by UPSC had been enhanced to 2 years. No reason is given to disagree with the advice of UPSC. The UPSC note under Paras. 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 found that the Applicant was found wanting and guilty of supervisory lapse. UPSC only said that the supervisory lapse of the Applicant came handy to those who perpetrated the forgery / fraud and the involvement of Applicant cannot be assumed. In view of the above, it is possible for the Respondents to notice that the penalty awarded to the Applicant is more than what was suggested by UPSC. In that view it was held: