CWP No.19432 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: CWP No.19432 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: May 20, 2009 DIRECTOR GENERAL (WORKS) CPWD & OTHERS ...PETITIONERS VERSUS G.C. WAHI & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. SANJAY GOYAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS. MR. N.P. MITTAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL) The Union of India has impugned the judgement dated 11.4.2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which the Original Application was allowed and the order Annexure A-1 dated 29.4.2005, vide which 10% cut which was imposed on the pension of the applicant for a period of 5 years was set aside. The Union of India has also impugned the order dated 29.8.2007, vide which the review application filed by them has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Mr. G.C. Wahi, respondent No.1-Original Applicant who was working as Executive Engineer in CPWD was sent on deputation to Delhi Development Authority where he worked from July, 1983 upto March, 1987. He was repatriated to his parent Department in the year 1987. He retired from service on 31.12.2001. In August, 2001 the respondent was CWP No.19432 of 2007 -2- served with a charge-sheet pertaining to certain irregularities committed by him during the years 1983 to 1987. The serving of charge-sheet was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal on the ground that as the charge-sheet has been issued with regard to the irregularities which occurred during the years 1983 to 1987, i.e. more than 14 years ago, hence the same cannot be enquired into at this belated stage. The Tribunal by placing reliance on Arun Kumar Basu Vs. Union of India, reported as 1992 (2) SLR 715 (CAT), State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakrishnan, reported as AIR 1998 SC 1833 and State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, reported as (1995) 2 SCC 570, quashed the order dated 29.4.2005, vide which 10% cut was imposed on the pension of the applicant for a period of 5 years on the ground that the charge-sheet served upon the respondent was highly belated. The review application filed by the Union of India was also dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner-Union of India has vehemently submitted that there was no delay on part of the petitioners to serve charge- sheet upon the respondent as it was the respondent who had caused the delay. He had been issued various memos to explain the irregularities committed by him during 1983 to 1987, but the same were never replied to by respondent No.1. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the irregularities committed by the respondent, if any, pertain to the years 1983 to 1987. He retired in the year 2001. The charge-sheet was served upon him in August, 2001, i.e. after more than 14 years of the irregularities committed by respondent No.1. Hence, the same is highly belated. Even CWP No.19432 of 2007 -3- otherwise, a perusal of the impugned judgement shows that the enquiry officer as well as the UPSC have admitted that the enquiry proceedings pertain to an old incident and the relevant records were not available. In the absence of availability of the relevant record, the respondent would obviously be prejudiced and putting up a reasonable defence. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 20, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE