it2025_00368 — Right to pension is a statutory right and therefore the measure of deprivation must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity or the grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of life as assured under Article 41 of the Constitution. Punishment awarded to the Applicant accordingly modified

IT Rules

Right to pension is a statutory right and therefore the measure of deprivation must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity or the grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of life as assured under Article 41 of the Constitution. Punishment awarded to the Applicant accordingly modified — The cited chunk discusses the ruling by the Hon'ble Tribunal, which directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to revise a penalty imposed on an employee, limiting the pension cut from 50% t... — Facts: The Applicant joined the Postal Department in 1975 as an Extra Departmental Agent and was promoted as Group ‘D' on 22-1-1978. He also served nearly six years in the Army Postal Service and was subsequently granted TBOP (Time-Bound One Promotion) on 19-5-1999. Throughout his career spanning nearly 35 years, the Applicant discharged his duties with dedication and integrity, without any complaint against his conduct or performance. While he was due to retire on 31-8-2011, just before retirement, a Charge Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued on 26-8-2011 which was continued under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Subsequently, 50% of his pension was withheld. Aggrieved, he has challenged the impugned order in the present OA seeking appropriate relief. The Applicant states that he married Mrs. M. Kasturi in 1991, but due to her health problems and inability to conceive, their marital life was disrupted. With her full knowledge and consent, a dissolution deed was executed on 13-9-1996, wherein Mrs. Kasturi clearly declared that she would not initiate any civil or criminal action and expressly permitted the Applicant to remarry. Pursuant to this, the Applicant married Mrs. M. Mary Jecindha on 19-5-1999, and the couple were blessed with three children. Despite the fact that the first wife had voluntarily relinquished her marital rights, disciplinary proceedings were later initiated against the Applicant on the allegation that he remarried without obtaining a formal divorce from his first wife. The Applicant submits that his conduct was bonafide, supported by the first wife's written consent, and stresses that after nearly 35 years of service, he was unfairly issued a charge memorandum on 26-8-2011, just four days before retirement. The Applicant further contends that no opportunity was provided to the Applicant to properly defend himself, which constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. It was therefore contended that the penalty of reducing 50% of the Applicant's pension is not only illegal and unjustified but also grossly disproportionate to the charge alleged. The Respondents contended that the Applicant's first wife, Smt. M. Kasthuri, had filed HMOP No. 27/2005 before the Subordinate Court, Gudiyattam, which dissolved their marriage on 23-1-2007 on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and bigamy. Contrary to the Applicant's claim of obtaining her consent and a dissolution deed before remarrying Mrs. M. Mary Jecindha in 1999, Smt. Kasthuri, in her deposition during the Rule 14 inquiry held on 23-7-2012, denied giving any consent or signing such a deed. It was argued that the Applicant contracted the second marriage while the first wife was alive and without formal divorce or prior permission and disclosed the second marriage only in 2011 while submitting pension papers. The Inquiry Officer had granted ample opportunity to defend himself, which the Applicant failed to utilize. Therefore, there were no procedural lapses on the part of the Inquiry Officer in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Further, the penalty of withholding 50% of the Applicant's monthly pension was imposed by the President of India only after a thorough consideration of the facts, circumstances, documentary records, the advice of the UPSC, and the Applicant's representation. Accordingly, the Respondents prayed for the dismissal of the OA.

IT Rules

Right to pension is a statutory right and therefore the measure of deprivation must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity or the grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of life as assured under Article 41 of the Constitution. Punishment awarded to the Applicant accordingly modified — The cited chunk discusses the ruling by the Hon'ble Tribunal, which directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to revise a penalty imposed on an employee, limiting the pension cut from 50% t... — Facts: The Applicant joined the Postal Department in 1975 as an Extra Departmental Agent and was promoted as Group ‘D' on 22-1-1978. He also served nearly six years in the Army Postal Service and was subsequently granted TBOP (Time-Bound One Promotion) on 19-5-1999. Throughout his career spanning nearly 35 years, the Applicant discharged his duties with dedication and integrity, without any complaint against his conduct or performance. While he was due to retire on 31-8-2011, just before retirement, a Charge Memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued on 26-8-2011 which was continued under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Subsequently, 50% of his pension was withheld. Aggrieved, he has challenged the impugned order in the present OA seeking appropriate relief. The Applicant states that he married Mrs. M. Kasturi in 1991, but due to her health problems and inability to conceive, their marital life was disrupted. With her full knowledge and consent, a dissolution deed was executed on 13-9-1996, wherein Mrs. Kasturi clearly declared that she would not initiate any civil or criminal action and expressly permitted the Applicant to remarry. Pursuant to this, the Applicant married Mrs. M. Mary Jecindha on 19-5-1999, and the couple were blessed with three children. Despite the fact that the first wife had voluntarily relinquished her marital rights, disciplinary proceedings were later initiated against the Applicant on the allegation that he remarried without obtaining a formal divorce from his first wife. The Applicant submits that his conduct was bonafide, supported by the first wife's written consent, and stresses that after nearly 35 years of service, he was unfairly issued a charge memorandum on 26-8-2011, just four days before retirement. The Applicant further contends that no opportunity was provided to the Applicant to properly defend himself, which constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. It was therefore contended that the penalty of reducing 50% of the Applicant's pension is not only illegal and unjustified but also grossly disproportionate to the charge alleged. The Respondents contended that the Applicant's first wife, Smt. M. Kasthuri, had filed HMOP No. 27/2005 before the Subordinate Court, Gudiyattam, which dissolved their marriage on 23-1-2007 on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and bigamy. Contrary to the Applicant's claim of obtaining her consent and a dissolution deed before remarrying Mrs. M. Mary Jecindha in 1999, Smt. Kasthuri, in her deposition during the Rule 14 inquiry held on 23-7-2012, denied giving any consent or signing such a deed. It was argued that the Applicant contracted the second marriage while the first wife was alive and without formal divorce or prior permission and disclosed the second marriage only in 2011 while submitting pension papers. The Inquiry Officer had granted ample opportunity to defend himself, which the Applicant failed to utilize. Therefore, there were no procedural lapses on the part of the Inquiry Officer in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Further, the penalty of withholding 50% of the Applicant's monthly pension was imposed by the President of India only after a thorough consideration of the facts, circumstances, documentary records, the advice of the UPSC, and the Applicant's representation. Accordingly, the Respondents prayed for the dismissal of the OA.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text