UNION OF INDIA v. N. K. Pandya S/o. Kaniyalal Pandya
2005-02-22
BHAWANI SINGH, H.K.RATHOD
body2005
DigiLaw.ai
BHAWANI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) REPRESENTATION dated 22-05-2003 for treating his voluntary retirement from 30-06-2003. He was informed that three months notice was required, therefore, action would be taken accordingly. Thereafter, vide order dated 31-07-2003, ( 2 ) HE was permitted to proceed on voluntary retirement on 31-07-2003. By order dated 30-07-2003, charge sheet with respect to incident of 1995 was issued and he was allowed provisional pension. This action of petitioner was challenged before the Central administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (for short cat ) in Original Application no. 60 of 2004. By order dated 13-08-2004, cat allowed the application and quashed the order issuing the charge sheet against the respondent. ( 3 ) PERUSAL of the impugned order demonstrates that for coming to the conclusion, CAT placed reliance on number of decisions by the Apex Court, two of them are TEK CHAND V/s. DILE RAM (2001 SCC (Lands) 555) and UNION OF INDIA AND others V/s. SAYED MUZAFFAR MIR (1995 SUPP (l) SCC 76 ). It held that once the respondent was allowed to retire voluntarily, issuance of charge sheet was not tenable. ( 4 ) SHRI Malkan, learned Senior standing Counsel for the Central government, placed reliance on Rule 48 of central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short CCS (Pension) Rules ). It is reproduced as under so far as relevant: "48. Retirement on completion of 30 years qualifying service. (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed thirty years qualifying service- (a) he may retire from service; or (b) he may be required by the appointing authority to retire in the public interest, and in the case of such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension: provided that (a) a Government servant shall give ( 5 ) RESPONDENT, Shri N. K. Pandya, was superintendent, Central Excise, having joined the Department in 1965. With regard to incident of 1995, some inquiry was going on against him. For this inquiry, his statement was recorded in 1995, so was of Shri. B. C. Shah, Inspector, Central Excise, directly concerned with the checking of goods, and the allegation is based on negligence on the part of the respondent having endorsed the documents prepared by Shri B. C. Shah. However, no charge sheet had been issued against the respondent.
For this inquiry, his statement was recorded in 1995, so was of Shri. B. C. Shah, Inspector, Central Excise, directly concerned with the checking of goods, and the allegation is based on negligence on the part of the respondent having endorsed the documents prepared by Shri B. C. Shah. However, no charge sheet had been issued against the respondent. ( 6 ) ON 30-04-2003, respondent submitted notice for voluntary retirement from 31-10-2003, otherwise, his normal date of retirement was 31-05-2005. In continuation with this notice, he submitted a notice in writing to the appointing authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire; and (b) the appointing authority may also give a notice in writing to a Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in the public interest or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice; provided further that where the government servant giving notice under clause (a) of the preceding proviso is under suspension, it shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold permission to such government servant to retire under this rule: ( 7 ) ON the basis of the above quoted rule, Shri Malkan contends that while granting permission to the Government servant for voluntary retirement, competent authority can impose the condition with regard to continuance of departmental inquiry, in other words, there is no prohibition to continue the departmental inquiry against the Government servants, despite grant of permission for voluntary retirement. We are unable to appreciate this submission. While considering the application of a Government servant for voluntary retirement, competent authority may withhold the permission where departmental inquiry is pending and continue the government service. But, once permission is granted, departmental inquiry cannot be continued. Where Rule is clear, discretion cannot be imported into the Rule, particularly, where action has penal consequences, power has to be clear and explicit. Penal power cannot be exercised in the absence of statutory power. Adverting to the case, competent authority must have applied the mind to the case against the respondent before according the sanction. It must have seen that case against the respondent was of 1995 and he was not directly involved, and on detection the defaulting party had paid the duty and penalty in 1996.
Adverting to the case, competent authority must have applied the mind to the case against the respondent before according the sanction. It must have seen that case against the respondent was of 1995 and he was not directly involved, and on detection the defaulting party had paid the duty and penalty in 1996. In the totality of circumstances, granting sanction and permitting the inquiry to continue is not envisaged by Rule 48, CCS (Pension) Rules. Matter has been examined legally and exhaustively by CAT before coming to the conclusion. ( 8 ) SHRI Malkan refers to Rule 9 of ccs (Pension) Rules and contends that president has right to withhold or withdraw pension. This contention has not been urged before CAT, therefore, cannot be allowed to be raised in this petition for the first time. However, it applies to Government servants retiring on reaching the age of superannuation and not a case with which the present matter is concerned. No other point was urged. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. Shri Malkan submits that petitioner may be given three months time for implementation of CAT decision. CAT decision is dated 13-08-2004. Almost six months have passed, therefore, petitioner should have implemented the decision subject to filing of this petition. However, as a special case, decision of CAT be implemented within two months from today. .