IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 22629 of 2002(S) ----------------------- (O.A.NO.233/2000 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH) PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & DAIRYING, NEW DELHI. 2. THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SHOLPUR HOUSE, SNANJANAN ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES NAUTICAL & ENGINEERING TRAINING, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & DAIRYING, FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, A.S.G. RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. SHRI.P..SUDHAKARAN, S/O.SHRI.KUTTAPPAN RETIRED JUNIOR CLERK, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES NAUTICAL & ENGINEERING TRAINING, KOCHI, RESIDING AT MANIMANDIRAM, KARUVELIPADI, KOCHI-5. 2. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.22629/2002 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF O.A.233/2000 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.12.99 BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 12.6.2000. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.4.2002 IN O.A.NO.233/2000 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 22629 OF 2002-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 23rd January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the respondents in O.A. No.233/2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The 1st respondent herein was the applicant. 2. The 1st respondent was a Junior Clerk, who was functioning as Cashier under the 3rd petitioner from April, 1993 to June, 1993. A shortage of Rs.2630/- was detected during his tenure on account of wrong payments. He was served with Annexure-A4 charge memo, alleging that he cheated the Government by manipulating the records. He denied the allegations. An enquiry was ordered into the charges. During the course of the enquiry, the applicant retired from service. Thereafter the proceedings were continued under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The enquiry officer found the applicant guilty. The President sought the views of the Union Public Service Commission. The U.P.S.C tendered OP 22629/2002 2 Annexure-A6 advice. It was found by the Commission that the allegation of cheating is not proved. He has committed only certain procedural irregularities. Based on that finding the Commission recommended to impose a penalty of 20% cut in his pension for a period of one year. The President accepted the said recommendation and issued orders accordingly, as per Rule 3(1) of the above said Rules. Pursuant to the same, the 3rd petitioner herein issued consequential proceedings, a copy of which is Annexure-A5, produced along with Ext.P1 copy of the O.A. The applicant challenged the action taken against him. The Tribunal interfered with the proceedings and quashed it by Ext.P3 order dated 4.4.2002. The respondents in the said O.A challenge Ext.P3 in this Original Petition, on various grounds. 3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. We notice that an action under Rule 9 is permissible, if only the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. There is no finding in Annexure-A6 to that effect. The pensioner was found guilty of only procedural irregularities. The President accepted that finding. If that be so, the imposition of the penalty of cut in pension under Rule 9 is impermissible on the basis of the above said finding. The recommendation of the U.P.S.C to deduct 20% of the pension for a period of one year is unsustainable, in OP 22629/2002 3 view of its own finding that the 1st respondent/applicant is guilty of only procedural irregularities. So, we are of the view that the C.A.T has rightly interfered with the impugned orders. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with Ext.P3 order. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. If the punishment was implemented and deduction was made from the pension, as per the orders impugned before the C.A.T., the same shall be refunded to the 1st respondent, if so far, not refunded, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/ OP 22629/2002 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------ O.P. NO.22629/2002-S ------------------------------------ JUDGMENT 23.01.2008.