JUDGMENT : - Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) The petitioner approached this Court claiming the following substantial reliefs: (i) That orders dated 25.3.1997, 25.3.2011, 16.6.2012 inquiry report and to hold joint proceedings against the petitioner and Sahi Ram may be quashed and set-aside and the pension of the petitioner may be re-fixed and the respondents may be directed to issue revised PPO in favour of the petitioner. All the arrears may be paid to the petitioner alongwith interest. (ii) That the suspension order of the petitioner may be revoked and the petitioner may be reinstated in service w.e.f. the date of passing of the suspension order and the petitioner may be held entitled to all financial benefits with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to pay the entire amount of PLA recovered from the DCRG of the petitioner alongwith interest.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in the petition is that: (i) He started his career with the respondent-Department as Oiler and Cleaner in the year 1952 in the MPP & Power. Thereafter, the petitioner was absorbed in the respondent-Board in the year 1971. The petitioner served the respondent-Board in various capacities and ultimately was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1987. The petitioner was transferred from Bhawanagar to Electrical Sub Division No.2, Solan in the month of November, 1991 and he joined as Assistant Engineer in Electrical Sub Division No.2, Solan in the month of March, 1992. (ii) On 28th October, 1992, the respondent-Board auctioned the condemned store articles of the store, which was situated at Solan. The petitioner thereafter was directed by respondent No.2 on 6.11.1992 to release the auctioned lot No. A&D to M/s Pramod Iron Works, Batala after the said firm had deposited 100% payment as successful bidder. The bidder lifted the auctioned lot of material on 17th November, 1992. (iii) The petitioner got a telephonic call from respondent No.2 that the bidder has picked up some un-auctioned store articles alongwith the auctioned materials. The petitioner thereafter accompanied the respondent No.2 and chased the truck. On the interception of the truck, all the un-auctioned articles were recovered from the bidder. Against the illegal acts of the bidder, an FIR under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the representative firm on 8.11.1992. The petitioner thereafter accompanied the respondent No.2 and chased the truck. On the interception of the truck, all the un-auctioned articles were recovered from the bidder. Against the illegal acts of the bidder, an FIR under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the representative firm on 8.11.1992. The name of the petitioner was not figured in the FIR. On the contrary, the petitioner’s name was mentioned in the FIR that he had associated with the inspection team. Thereafter 100% physical verification of the store was carried out by a duly constituted committee and Storekeeper, Sahi Ram, was placed under suspension on 12.11.1992 and a criminal case was instituted against him alongwith one Satish Kumar. Both these persons were acquitted by the competent Court of law. (iv). Though the name of the petitioner was neither there in the FIR, nor he was dealt with departmentally, yet on 8.12.1992 the petitioner was put under suspension. The respondent-Department vide memo dated 18.2.1993 had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and a detailed charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide memo dated 18.2.1993. The perusal of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner revealed that it was alleged in the charge sheet that when the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer at Solan, he, in league with Sahi Ram, Storekeeper and in connivance with Satish Kumar, proprietor of M/s Promod Iron Works, G.T. Road, Batala, fraudulently got lifted Board’s material costing Rs. 18.310/- in a private truck bearing No. 1571 alongwith auctioned material with the intention to cheat and cause wrongful loss of the said amount to HPSEB and corresponding against himself, fellow officials and Satish Kumar, proprietor of the firm. It was alleged that the petitioner accepted bribe from Satish Kumar. It was alleged in the charge sheet that he has failed to maintain the absolute integrity and his act is unbecoming of the person of his status. (v). No inquiry was initiated thereafter for a long time and the petitioner superannuated on 28.2.1993 while he was under suspension. On 3.4.1993 a joint inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner alongwith one Sahi Ram, Storekeeper, under CCS (CCA) Rules. The initiation of the joint disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and Sahi Ram cannot be said to be a correct exercise of official powers. However, the authorities did not take note of the objections, raised by the petitioner in this behalf. The initiation of the joint disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and Sahi Ram cannot be said to be a correct exercise of official powers. However, the authorities did not take note of the objections, raised by the petitioner in this behalf. (vi). The inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report on 2.3.1996. On 25.3.1997 the disciplinary authority ordered withholding of 1/4th pension of the petitioner in a wrong, illegal and arbitrary manner. The petitioner felt aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order of penalty, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 5.5.1997 assailing the inquiry report and penalty order. (vii). The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal in a cryptic and non-speaking manner on 5.2.1999 and the petitioner preferred the Original Application against this order, which, on abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, was transferred to this Court and was re-registered as CWP (T) No. 5768 of 2008. This writ petition came up before the Court on 22.11.2010 on which date the following order was passed: “The petitioner approached this Court with certain grievances regarding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. In the nature of the order, we propose to pass in this case, it is not necessary to go into the various factual details. It is seen that against Annexure A-10, which is regarding withholding of 1/4th basic pension of the petitioner for three years, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, which has been disposed of as per Annexure A-12. It is seen from Annexure A-12 that none of the grounds taken by the petitioner in Annexure A-11 has been adverted to and in any case they are not seen considered as per the order passed by the Appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, since the order does not satisfy the requirements of law of passing a speaking order in an appeal filed against a disciplinary action imposing punishment, we set aside Annexure A-12 and direct the Appellate Authority to pass a speaking order on Annexure A-11 appeal within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner and in case the petitioner seeks an opportunity of hearing, the same shall also be granted. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.” (viii). Thereafter, the Appellate Authority passed the order dated 25.3.2011. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.” (viii). Thereafter, the Appellate Authority passed the order dated 25.3.2011. Against which order, the petitioner filed writ petition and the same was registered as CWP No. 3779 of 2011. On 12.3.2012, the following order was passed: “Pursuant to the directions of this Court, impugned order dated 25.3.2011 (Annexure P-17) has now been passed by the Board. It is seen that directions issued by this Court have not been complied with in letter and spirit inasmuch as petitioner has not been heard before passing of the impugned order. Further, it is seen that contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal (Annexure P-10) have also not been dealt with or adverted to by the authority. As such, as prayed for, on this short ground alone, order dated 25.3.2011 (Annexure P-17) is quashed with further directions to the respondents to decide the appeal afresh by not only associating the petitioner and affording him opportunity of hearing but also passing a speaking order clearly dealing with the contentions raised by him in the appeal. Needful be positively done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.” (ix). The Appellate Authority, vide office order dated 16.6.2012, rejected the claim of the petitioner and the present petition has been filed on the ground that the impugned order whereby the penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules because while imposing the penalty upon the petitioner under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the Government of India’s Decision, which appears below the main Rule, has not been taken care of as because it is only in case the petitioner is found guilty of “grave misconduct or negligence” during the period of service can the department effected recoveries from the pension or withheld the pension. 3. The respondents opposed the claim of the petitioner by filing reply wherein the respondents have not denied the factual aspects of the case of the petitioner. However, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is claimed to be justified on the ground of gravity of misconduct. 4. 3. The respondents opposed the claim of the petitioner by filing reply wherein the respondents have not denied the factual aspects of the case of the petitioner. However, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is claimed to be justified on the ground of gravity of misconduct. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records carefully. 5. The Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, reads as follows: “9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension (1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed: Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five(Rupees Three thousand five hundred from 1.1.2006 – see GID below Rule 49) per mensem.] 2 (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service: Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President. (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment,- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President, (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service. (3) Deleted. (4) In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 69 shall be sanctioned. (5) Where the President decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. (6) For the purpose of this rule, - (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted – (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court. Instruction 1 below Rule 9, reads as follows: “(1) Scope of the expression ‘grave misconduct’.- The term ‘grave misconduct’ used in Article 351-A of CSR [Rule 9, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972] is wide enough to include ‘corrupt practices’. In cases where the charge of corruption is proved after pension has been sanctioned, action to withhold or withdraw pension may be taken under Article 351-A ibid [Rule 9, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972]. In cases where the charge of corruption is proved after pension has been sanctioned, action to withhold or withdraw pension may be taken under Article 351-A ibid [Rule 9, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972]. The property or pecuniary resources in respect of which the departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted under Article 351-A, CSR or Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, should have been in possession of the person concerned or of any other person on his behalf at any time within the period of four years before the institution of such proceedings, if the same were not instituted while the officer was on duty either before his retirement or during re-employment. [G.I., M.F.,O.M. No. F.5(75)-E.V/59, dated the 28th August, 1959 and the 6th October, 1960 and No. 5 (4)-E.V (A)/78, dated the 28th June, 1978.] Instructions contained above issued with reference to Article 351-A of CSR will continue to apply in relation to action under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which has replaced Article 351-A of CSR subject to modification made. [G.I., M.F.,O.M. No. 5(4)-E.V(A)/78, dated the 28th June, 1978.]” 6. Thus, it is clear from the combined reading of the rules along with instructions that it is only in case of grave misconduct and negligence that recovery from the pension can be made from the delinquent pensioner. This is so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.V. Kapoor vs. Union of India and others AIR 1990 SC 1923 as under: “6. As seen the exercise of the power by the President is hedged with a condition precedent that a finding should be recorded either in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings that the pensioner committed grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of his duty while in office, subject of the charge. In the absence of such a finding the President is without authority of law to impose penalty of withholding pension as a measure of punishment either in whole or in part permanently or for a specified period, or to order recovery of the pecuniary loss in whole or in part from the pension of the employee, subject to minimum of Rs.60/-. 7. 7. Rule 9 of the rules empowers the President only to withhold or withdraw pension permanently or for a specified period in whole or in part or to order recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the State in whole or in part subject to minimum. The employee’s right to pension is a statutory right. The measure of deprivation therefore, must be correlative or to commensurate with the gravity of the grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of his life as assured under Article 41 of the Constitution. The impugned order discloses that the President withheld on permanent basis the payment of gratuity in addition to pension. The right to gratuity is also a statutory right. The appellant was not charged with nor was given an opportunity that his gratuity would be withheld as a measure of punishment. No provision of law has been brought to our notice under which the President is empowered to withhold gratuity as well, after his retirement as a measure of punishment. Therefore, the order to withhold the gratuity as a measure of penalty is obviously illegal and is devoid of jurisdiction.” 7. Similar provision of law regarding interpretation of Rule 2.2 of the Pension Rules came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Amrik Singh 1995 Supp.(1) SCC 321 wherein it has been held as under: “4. Rule 2.2 of the Pension Rules, clause (b) clearly mentions thus: “2.(2) (b) The Government further reserves to themselves the right to withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and right of ordering the recovery from the pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement.” (emphasis supplied) A reading thereof clearly indicates that the disciplinary authority, consequent upon the result of the departmental or judicial proceedings, should record a finding whether the delinquent has committed grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the service rendered upon reemployment after retirement. On recording such a positive finding, the competent authority has been empowered to withhold the pension in whole or in part or to recover the pecuniary loss, if any, caused to the Government. These orders are only consequential to the finding of the guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of the duty during the period of his service including the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. 5. It is seen that the learned Chief Justice of the High Court, on the administrative side, while passing the order of dismissal agreed with the enquiry officer’s finding that the respondent committed embezzlement and mentioned that the order of dismissal would come into immediate effect from the date of the order. In other words, he appears to have intended to say that the order of dismissal will be operative from the date of the order of the dismissal. But it would appear that the Chief Justice was not apprised that the delinquent had already been retired from service on completion of two years’ period of extended service of re-employment with effect from 31.8.1982. Therefore, the order of giving effect to the order of dismissal from the date of its order was of no consequence and became superfluous as he was no longer in service as on that date. However, it would be clear that he has the power either under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab and Haryana Civil Services Manual, Vol.II or Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules to take appropriate action as was made applicable to the staff of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as the case may be. Therefore, it would be open to him to take such action as is open to him under law. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the writs are issued with the above modification. The appeals are allowed. No costs.” 8. Yet again the Rules 139 and 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules which are same and similar and virtually para-materia with Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 came up for consideration in Chandreshwar Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar and another (2001) 9 SCC 369 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “6. No costs.” 8. Yet again the Rules 139 and 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules which are same and similar and virtually para-materia with Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 came up for consideration in Chandreshwar Prasad Sinha vs. State of Bihar and another (2001) 9 SCC 369 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the provisions of Rules 139 and 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, the relevant portions whereof read thus: “139.(a) The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. (c) The State Government reserve to themselves the powers of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. No such power shall, however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, or any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed.” “43. (a) Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension. The Provincial Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the Provincial Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of a pension under this Rule, shall be final and conclusive. The decision of the Provincial Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of a pension under this Rule, shall be final and conclusive. (b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered or re-employment after retirement.” 9. Ms. Richa Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has argued that merely because the word ‘grave’ has not been specifically mentioned in the orders would not make the misconduct committed by the petitioner any less severe and the same would continue to be grave and this Court would not sit as an appellate authority. For this purpose, she has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of Tamil Nadu and another v. A. Rajapandian AIR 1995 SC 561 wherein it has been held as under: “4. The Administrative Tribunal set-aside the order of dismissal solely on re-appreciation of the evidence recorded by the inquiring authority and reaching the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the charges against the respondent. We have no hesitation in holding at the outset that the Administrative Tribunal fell into patent error in reappreciating and going into the sufficiency of evidence. It has been authoritatively settled by string of authorities of this Court that the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over a decision based on the findings of the inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. The Administrative Tribunal, in this case, has found no fault with the proceedings held by the inquiring authority. It has quashed the dismissal order by reappreciating the evidence and reaching a finding different than that of the inquiring authority. 8. The Administrative Tribunal, in this case, has found no fault with the proceedings held by the inquiring authority. It has quashed the dismissal order by reappreciating the evidence and reaching a finding different than that of the inquiring authority. 8. We have quoted above three paragraphs from the impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal to show that the Tribunal reappreciated the evidence recorded before the inquiring authority. The Administrative Tribunal reached different conclusions from the inquiring authority on its own evaluation of the evidence. The Tribunal fell into patent error and acted wholly beyond its jurisdiction. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of appreciation of evidence by the two authorities because we are of the view that the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the inquiring authority.” 10. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law propounded in the aforesaid case but the fact nonetheless remains as to whether the respondents had ever applied their mind with respect to the gravity and seriousness of the charge so as to be termed as ‘grave’. This view of mine, finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically and specifically held that the exercise of power by the President is hedged with a condition precedent that a finding should be recorded either in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings that the pensioner has committed grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of his duty while in office, subject of the charge. In the absence of such findings, the President is without authority of law to impose penalty of withholding pension as a measure of punishment either in whole or in part permanently or for a specified period from the pension of the employee. This condition having not been proved, I am left with no option but to allow the petition and accordingly the order dated 16.6.2012 is quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to issue revised PPO in favour of the petitioner and the respondents are further directed to pay all arrears to the petitioner within a period of three months, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6%. The respondents are directed to issue revised PPO in favour of the petitioner and the respondents are further directed to pay all arrears to the petitioner within a period of three months, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6%. The respondents are further directed to pay the entire amount of PLA recovered from the DCRG of the petitioner within the aforesaid period or else they shall be liable for the same interest as specified hereinabove. The petition stands dispose of on above terms, so also the pending application, if any.