Judgment :- 1. Union of India has preferred this writ petition challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (for short, ‘CAT), in O.A.No.313/2005, which application was filed by the respondent who is a retired Deputy Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat (RAW). 2. On account of the complaint lodged by one Prasad Rao, the respondent was kept under suspension by an order dated 16.07.2003 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘CCA Rules). A charge sheet was issued imputing the misconduct of the respondent by appointing in Inquiry officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges leveled against the respondent were proved on account of his admission and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed an order on 21.05.2004 brining the monthly pension payable to the respondent to the minimum amount for a period of 10 years, as a result of which, his pension is brought down is Rs.2,000/- per month. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the respondent preferred a mercy petition before His Challenging the same, the application was filed before the CAT on the ground that the punishment imposed on the respondent-applicant would shock the conscious of the court. The CAT considering the entire case came to the conclusion that the inquiry itself is not in accordance with the inquiry rules and therefore allowed the application. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned Counsel Mr.Vasudeva Rao appearing for the petitioner taking us through the statement given by the respondent-delinquent before the Inquiry Officer is writing and his further statement given for the second time in writing before the Inquiry Officer and also the explanation offered by him to the show cause notice and the grounds urged in the mercy petition and so also in the application filed before the CAT, submits that the respondent has admitted in unequivocal terms about his guilt and therefore the CAT was not justified in setting aside the inquiry relying upon the judgment in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB VS SUKHDEV SINGH – 1980(2) SLR 29. According to him, the facts involved in Sukhdev Singh’s case and the facts involved in the present case, are entirely different. Therefore, he requests the Court to set aside the order passed by the CAT. 5. According to him, the facts involved in Sukhdev Singh’s case and the facts involved in the present case, are entirely different. Therefore, he requests the Court to set aside the order passed by the CAT. 5. Per contra, Mr. Nagendra Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that immediately after the receipt of articles of charges, the respondent has filed the objections in detail denying each and every charge imputed against him. He further submits that since he was at the stage of retirement, to avoid the inquiry proceedings as there would be delay in fixation of his pension and retrial benefits, he has given the statement that under what circumstances such an incident took place and that the same was not an intentional one. According to him, using abusive language to one Prasad Rao – complainant was in the heat of passion and that the same cannot be a ground to bring down the pension to the lowest scale without considering the service records of the respondent for more than 30 years. According to him, throughout his career, no such incident had taken place and he has earned the goodwill of everyone. When the incident took place, he had crossed the age of 59 years and was about to retire from the services. On account of humiliation and torture given to him by the complainant – Prasad Rao, in a fit of anger, without his knowledge, has used the abusive language for which he regretted himself and requested the authorities to pardon him and to allow him to retire from service peacefully. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to dismiss the petition, or in the alternative, to reduce the punishment as it shocks the conscious of any court. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us in this writ petition is, “whether the CAT was justified in setting aside the inquiry report and the order of punishment?” 7. We have perused the records. 8. At the first instance, immediately after the receipt of articles of charges, the respondent has denied the charges leveled against him. We have perused the records. 8. At the first instance, immediately after the receipt of articles of charges, the respondent has denied the charges leveled against him. During the course of inquiry, he has given a statement in writing a to what made him to use the abusive language against the complainant Prasad Rao and requested the authorities to drop the proceedings and he has also made it very clear that he has explained in writing the reasons for such provocation. He has also narrated in writing that in his entire service for more than 30 years, no such occasion had arisen to use such abusive language to anyone. According to him, on account of the provocation made by the complainant, in a heat of passion, without his knowledge, has used the abusive language, for which he has regretted. He has also explained in detail that he has tendered unconditional apology to give a question to the proceedings. These facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that when a show cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority after the receipt of inquiry report, he has reiterated the same. Similarly, he has reiterated the same explanation when a mercy petition was filed before His Excellency the President of India.9. By looking into these continuous correspondences, anyone can gather that the respondent who was about to retire from the services after attaining the age of superannuation, was not willing to proceed with the inquiry and he wanted to give a question to the same by tendering unconditional apology. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondent has admitted the allegations made against him in the articles of charges. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the CAT has to be set aside. 10. After setting aside the order passed by the CAT, what is required to be considered by us in this writ petition is, whether using such an abusive language in a heat of passion, calls for levy of penalty reducing the pension to a minimum amount for a period of 10 years commencing from the date of his retirement which according to us is excessive and arbitrary and not commensurate with the charges leveled against him. When an officer who9 has put in service of more than 30 years and has served the petitioner without any blemish in his career, on account of the provocation of any official, in a heat of passion, if any filthy language is used, cannot be a ground to bring the pension to a minimum which would affect his retirement life. Therefore, we are of the view that the imposition of penalty is excessive and arbitrary and it shocks the conscious of this court. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the punishment imposed is to be reduced bringing down the reduction of pension from 10 years to 3 years from the date of attaining the age of superannuation. 11. According, this writ petition is allowed in part modifying the order of the CAT to the extent of reducing the punishment imposed bringing down the reduction of pension from 10 years to 3 years from the date of attaining the age of superannuation. The respondent is entitled for all consequential benefits.