C.W.P. No. 14900-CAT of 2004 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14900-CAT of 2004 Date of Decision: 13.8.2009 Rattan Singh .................................................................... Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration, U.T. Chandigarh and others .................................................................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. G.C.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for the respondents. .... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.7.2002 passed by the Director Health Service, Chandigarh Administration, and the order dated 19.8.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, vide which order of penalty of reduction of pension to the extent of 25% has been passed against him. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Superintendent Grade-II in the office of District Family Welfare Officer, U.T. Chandigarh. He retired from service on 31.5.1994 and after about two years of his retirement, he was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 on the C.W.P. No. 14900-CAT of 2004 [ 2 ] allegation that he had failed to observe the provisions of General Financial Rules and got funds diverted in connivance with the then District Family Welfare Officer. The allegations against the petitioner were that he had purchased certain medicines from firms which were not approved and also that he had suo motu purchased certain medicines without obtaining the approval of the competent authority. An enquiry was held and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges as per report of the Inquiry Officer dated 31.7.1997. He was also served with a show cause notice with regard to imposition of the said penalty to which he failed to reply and ultimately the Director Health Services, Chandigarh Administration, vide order dated 11.3.1998 imposed penalty of cut in the pension to the extent of 25% and also reduced his basic pay from Rs.2440.00 to Rs.1830.00 per month for pension purpose permanently with effect from the date of his retirement. Against the said order, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 394-CH-98 which was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.1.2002. The Tribunal set aside the punishment order of imposition of 25% cut in the pension and remanded the case back to the competent authority/Government to pass fresh order on the basis of the enquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner and the findings recorded thereon in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. In pursuance to the said order, the competent authority again passed the order dated 15.7.2002 (Annexure P-10) whereby penalty of reduction of pension to the extent of 25% was imposed upon the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A. No. 597-CH of 2003 which has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 19.8.2004. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the competent C.W.P. No. 14900-CAT of 2004 [ 3 ] authority passed orders without giving the petitioner any fresh opportunity of hearing and has again imposed penalty of cut in pension to the extent of 25%. It is contended that such an act is arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also raised points against the manner in which the enquiry proceedings were conducted. We have gone through the entire file and find that all the points as raised by the petitioner had been duly considered by the competent authority as well as by the Tribunal. Full opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner had received a copy of the enquiry report and had also filed a representation against the same. He has also availed of all the statutory remedies available to him. Hence, there is no procedural or legal defect in the orders Annexure P-10 and P-14. It has lastly been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that a lenient view be taken in this case as the charge-sheet against his immediate senior i.e. Dr. A.P.Garg, who was then Deputy Director, has been dropped vide order Annexure P-13. It has next been argued that the petitioner has superannuated way back on 31.5.1994 and, therefore, the imposition of 25% cut in the pension is highly excessive. A perusal of the facts in the present case shows that the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency at this stage because he has superannuated as Superintendent Grade-II from the office of the District Family Welfare Officer, U.T. on 31.5.1994. More than 15 years have elapsed since the date of his retirement. In this view of the matter, we modify the order of reduction of pension from 25% as imposed vide orders Annexures P-10 and P-14 to a C.W.P. No. 14900-CAT of 2004 [ 4 ] reduction in pension to the extent of 10% henceforth. The petitioner shall, however, not be entitled to any refund of amount already recovered from him. Consequently the writ petition is partly allowed. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE 13.8.2009 rupi