ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 22.01.2007 passed by the respondents to punish the petitioner by withholding 90% of the pension forever. 3. The punishment order was passed after serving a charge-sheet to the petitioner and inquiry report adverse to him. The charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved and considering the gravity of the charges, the order impugned herein, was passed. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised many arguments to challenge the order of punishment and before those arguments are taken into consideration, it would be relevant and gainful to quote the charges levelled against the petitioner. The charges are quoted thus:- "Charge No. 1. That you, on 23.05.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decide Land Acquisition Reference No. 176/1987, Vijay Kumar Vij & others Vs. Collector, Agra and others for an area of 6 Bigha and 4 Biswa, belonging to original tenure holder Jauhari Lal, awarding compensation to subsequent purchasers by enhancement of Rs. 18,53,225.10, which was several times more than the total investment made by them, such purchasers having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land, in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of law and equity to unduly favour such persons, against all judicial norms and propriety, by exorbitantly enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 5.50 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 27/-per square yard, in a period of 4 and 1/2 years, for a mere invesgtment of Rs. 45,000-, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 23.05.2001 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 176/1987, Vijay Kumar Vij & others Vs. Collector, Agra and others. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra, to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 2. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 176/1987, Vijay Kumar Vij & others Vs. Collector, Agra and others. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra, to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 2. That you, on 23.05.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 177/1987, Sarumunjal Vs. Collector, Agra and another for an area of 1 Bigha and 7 Biswa, belonging to original tenure holder Naraini Devi w/o Jauhari Lal, awarding compensation to subsequent purchaser Sarumunjal by enhancement of Rs. 5,17,315.50, which was several times more than the total investment made by them, such purchaser having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land, in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of law and equity to unduly favour such person, against all judicial norms and propriety, by exorbitantly enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 5.50 per square determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 27/-per square yard, in a period of 4 and 1/2 years, for a mere investment of Rs. 10,000/-, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 23.05.2001 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 177/1987, Sarumunjal Vs. Collector, Agra and another. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 3. That you, on 23.05.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 238/1987, Lala Ram Vs. Collector Agra & others, for an area 2 Bigha and 2 Biswa, belonging to original tenure holder Lala Ram, awarding compensation to subsequent purchasers by enhancement of Rs. 7,32,393,63, which was several times more than the total investment made by them, such purchasers having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land, in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of law and equity to unduly favour such person, against all judicial norms and propriety, by exorbitantly enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 5,50 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 5,50 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 27/-per square yard, in a period of 5 years & 11 months, for a mere investment of Rs. 10,000/-, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 23.05.2001 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 238/1987, Lala Ram Vs. Collector, Agra and others. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 4. That you, on 23.05.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 236/1997, Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Collector Agra & others, for an area 8 Bigha and 13 Biswan, belonging to original tenure holder Natthi Singh, awarding compensation to subsequent purchaser Rakesh Kumar Jain by enhancement of Rs. 13,80,148/-, which was several times more than the total investment made by them, such purchaser having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land, in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of law and equity to unduly favour such person, against all judicial norms and propriety, by exorbitantly enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4.81 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 30/-per square yard, for a mere investment of Rs. 14,000/-, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 23.05.2001 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 236/1997, Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Collector Agra & others. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 5. That you, on 23.05.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 282/1987, Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 236/1997, Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Collector Agra & others. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 5. That you, on 23.05.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 282/1987, Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Collector Agra, for an area 10 Bigha, 3 Biswa and 4 Biswansis, belonging to original tenure holder Tikam Singh, Shyam Singh & Hukam Singh, awarding compensation to subsequent purchaser Rakesh Kumar Jain by enhancement of Rs. 32,50,128.28, which was several times more than the total investment made by them, such purchaser having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land, in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of law and equity to unduly favour such person, against all judicial norms and propriety, by exorbitantly enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4.81 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 25/-per square yard, for a mere investment of Rs. 24,000/-, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 23.05.2001 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 282/1987, Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Collector Agra. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 6. That you, on 23.05.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 285/1987, Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Collector Agra, for an area 8 Bigha and 13 Biswa belonging to original tenure holder Pratap Singh, awarding compensation to subsequent purchaser Rakesh Kumar Jain by enhancement of Rs. 13,29,344/-, which was several times more than the total investment made by them, such purchaser having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land, in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of law and equity to unduly favour such person, against all judicial norms and propriety, by exorbitantly enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4.81 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 4.81 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 25/-per square yard, in a period of 4 years & 9 months, for a mere investment of Rs. 44,000/-, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 23.05.2001 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 287/1987, Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Collector Agra. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 7. That you, on 02.08.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 70/1986, Smt. Mithilesh Jain Vs. Collector Agra, for an area of 2 Bigha, 2 Biswa and 13 Biswansis belonging to original tenure holders Amar Singh, Lal Singh, Bal Singhy and Vijay Singh, awarding compensation to subsequent purchaser Smt. Mithilesh Jain by enhancement of Rs. 6,42,932/-, which was several times more than the total investment made by them, such purchaser having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land, in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of law and equity to unduly favour such person, against all judicial norms and propriety, by exorbitantly enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4.81 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 25/-per square yard, for a mere investment of Rs. 20,000/-, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 02.08.2001 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 70/1986, Smt. Mithilesh Jain Vs. Collector Agra. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 8. That you, on 07.08.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 380/1987, Smt. Neeta Vs. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 70/1986, Smt. Mithilesh Jain Vs. Collector Agra. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 8. That you, on 07.08.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 380/1987, Smt. Neeta Vs. Collector Agra, for an area of 7 Bigha, 3 Biswa and 12 Biswansis belonging to original tenure holder Gulab Singh, awarding compensation to subsequent purchaser Smt. Neeta by enhancement of Rs. 21,71,122/-, which was several times more than the total investment made by them, such purchaser having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land, in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of law and equity to unduly favour such person, against all judicial norms and propriety, by exorbitantly enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4.81 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 27/-per square yard, for a mere investment of Rs. 10,000/-, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 07.08.2001 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 380/1987, Smt. Neeta Vs. Collector Agra. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 9. That you, on 18.10.2002, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 287/1987, Smt. Mithilesh Vs. Collector Agra, for an area of 4 Bigha, 1 Biswa and 5 Biswansis belonging to original tenure holder Hari, awarding compensation to subsequent purchaser Smt. Mithilesh by enhancement of Rs. 38,00,000/-, which was several times more than the total investment made by them, such purchaser having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land, in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of law and equity to unduly favour such person, against all judicial norms and propriety, by exorbitantly enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4.81 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 25/-per square yard, for a mere investment of Rs. 4.81 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 25/-per square yard, for a mere investment of Rs. 80,000/-, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 18.10.2002 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 287/1987, Smt. Mithilesh Vs. Collector Agra. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 10. That you, on 10.02.2002, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 237/1987, Sudhir Kumar and another Vs. Collector Agra, for an area of 1 Bigha, 15 Biswa and 12 Biswansis belonging to original tenure holder Bal Kishan, awarding compensation to subsequent purchaser Smt. Mithilesh by enhancement of Rs. 8,37,602/-, which was several times more than the total investment made by them, such purchaser having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land, in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of law and equity to unduly favour such person, against all judicial norms and propriety, by exorbitantly enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4.81 per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 27/-per square yard, for a mere investment of Rs. 1,50,000/-, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 23.05.2002 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 237/1987, Sudhir Kumar and another Vs. Collector Agra. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 11. That you, on 19.05.2003, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 53/1984, Girish Kumar Goel Vs. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 237/1987, Sudhir Kumar and another Vs. Collector Agra. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 11. That you, on 19.05.2003, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 53/1984, Girish Kumar Goel Vs. Collector Agra and others, for an area of 13 Bigha, 4 Biswa and 13 Biswansis belonging to original tenure holder Sarvodaya Vidya Mandir through Manager Pramod Kumar Gupta,, awarding compensation to subsequent purchaser Girish Kumar by enhancement of Rs. 40,27,753.10, which was several times more than the total investment made by them, such purchaser having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land, in flagrant violation of cardinal principles of law and equity to unduly favour such person, against all judicial norms and propriety, by exorbitantly enhancing the rate of compensation from 75 paise per square yard determined by S.L.A.O. to Rs. 18/-per square yard, for a mere investment of Rs. 1,30,000/-, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 19.05.2003 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 53/1984, Girish Kumar Goel Vs. Collector Agra and others. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Charge No. 12. That you, on 31.07.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 236/1987, 282/4987 and 285/1987 in collusion with the aforesaid counsel, by exorbitantly enhancing compensation in favour of the son of the counsel Sri K.C. Jain. Charge No. 12. That you, on 31.07.2001, while posted as XIth Additional District Judge, Agra, decided Land Acquisition Reference No. 236/1987, 282/4987 and 285/1987 in collusion with the aforesaid counsel, by exorbitantly enhancing compensation in favour of the son of the counsel Sri K.C. Jain. against all judicial norms and propriety, who was substituted as claimant in place of original tenure holders during the pendency of the aforementioned L.A.R. cases in your court, having no right to claim compensation for the acquired land in the aforesaid three matters, leading to the inference that you were actuated by extraneous considerations, and you thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and complete devotion to duty, and you thus committed misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules 1956. Evidence which is proposed to be considered in support of the charge:- (1) Photocopy of your judgment-dated 31.07.2001 passed in the aforesaid Land Acquisition Reference. (2) Record of L.A.R. No. 236/1987, 282/4987 and 285/1987, all three entitled Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Collector Agra and others. (3) Statement of Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Awam Vikas Parishad, Agra to be recorded during the course of the enquiry. Note:-Any other evidence relating to any of the aforementioned charges, which may be found necessay during the course of enquiry, shall also be considered, after due notice to you. You are required to put in your written reply to the charges, within 15 days of the receipt of this charge sheet. You are further informed that, in case you do not file written reply within the prescribed time, it will be presumed that you have none to furnish, and if you fail to appear on the specified date, the enquiry shall proceed and be completed ex-parte. Copies of the documentary evidence in support of the charge are attached herewith, except the record of L.A.R. Nos. 176/1987,177/1987,238/1987,236/1997, 282/1987,285/1987,70/1986,380/1987,287/1987,237/1 987 and 53/1984, relating to charge no. 1 to 12, which may be inspected by you in the office of the Presenting Officer after giving prior information therfor. If you desire, of if the undersigned so directs, an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such allegations as are not admitted. At that enquiry, such oral evidence will be recorded as the undersigned considers necessary and you shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses. If you desire, of if the undersigned so directs, an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such allegations as are not admitted. At that enquiry, such oral evidence will be recorded as the undersigned considers necessary and you shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses. You are further required to inform the undersigned, in writing, whether you desire to be heard in person, and in case you wish to examine any witnesses, to submit alongwith your written reply, their names and addresses, together with a brief indication of the evidence which each such witness shall be expected to give." 5. A perusal of the charges levelled against the petitioner shows that while he was presiding as Additional District Judge Fatehpur, decided many Reference Petition arising out of the award for acquisition of land. The amount of compensation was enhanced manifold. The allegation is it to be with extraneous consideration. The enquiry into the charges was made by the Enquiry Officer followed by an enquiry report. Charge Nos.-1 to 11 were found proved and accordingly, after processing the matter, the order of punishment was passed withholding of 90% of the pension of the petitioner. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that issuance of the charge-sheet, dated 19.7.2005, was illegal because before issuance of charge-sheet, petitioner had voluntarily retired from service and joined the post of Central Administrative Tribunal. After his joining Central Administrative Tribunal, a charge-sheet could not have been served without the approval and permission of the President of India, who was the employer of the petitioner thereupon. 7. In view of the above, the High Court was not competent to issue charge-sheet and on the aforesaid ground, not only the charge-sheet goes but the consequential proceedings followed by the impugned order, deserves to be set aside. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that charge nos.-1 to 3 were of the period prior to 4 years of issuance of charge-sheet. As per Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations (in short "CSR"), a charge-sheet could not have been given for the incidence 4 years prior to the date of its issuance. The petitioner raised objections against charge nos.-1 to 3 in reference to Article 351-A of CSR, but ignored by the enquiry officer so as the competent authority in passing the order. 9. The petitioner raised objections against charge nos.-1 to 3 in reference to Article 351-A of CSR, but ignored by the enquiry officer so as the competent authority in passing the order. 9. Punishment in reference to charge nos.-1 to 3 are in violation of Article 351-A of CSR. In view of the aforesaid, also the impugned order of punishment deserves to be set aside. 10. It is also urged that conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer at the end of the enquiry report is contrary to the charge(s) framed against the petitioner. It is also that the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been dealt with express finding on each issue raised by the petitioner. The enquiry officer made a reference of the reply and gist of the issue raised therein but failed to deal with it while recording the finding(s). 11. In view of the above, the disciplinary authority should not have relied on the said enquiry report where the plea raised by the petitioner has not been dealt with. 12. In view of the above also, the impugned order may be interfered by this Court. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further stated that while deciding the reference petitions, the petitioner relied on the judgments wherein also the enhancement was made after taking into consideration the award earlier passed for the neighbouring land. The rates of the land therein were taken into consideration for determination of compensation in the case. The petitioner had passed a just and proper order on the reference petition. 14. The aforesaid is reflected from the fact that the orders passed by the petitioner were then upheld by the High Court and thereupon the SLPs preferred by the State Government were also dismissed. The reference petition decided by the petitioner was, thus upheld by the Apex Court. 15. In view of above also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside as allegations have been made in reference to orders upheld by the Apex Court. A reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Vir Singh v. State of U.P. in Civil Appeal No.-1682 of 2016 decided by the order dated 23.2.2016 has been given. In the said case also, the judicial officer was subjected to disciplinary inquiry in regard to the order passed on reference petition. A reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Vir Singh v. State of U.P. in Civil Appeal No.-1682 of 2016 decided by the order dated 23.2.2016 has been given. In the said case also, the judicial officer was subjected to disciplinary inquiry in regard to the order passed on reference petition. The order of the judicial officer was upheld by the Apex Court and thereby, the order of punishment was interfered in the light of the facts of that case. 16. In the instant case also, orders passed by the petitioner and subjected to the disciplinary action have been upheld by the Apex Court. Thus, applying the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Veer (Supra) the impugned order deserves to be set aside and thereby the petitioner may be entitled to receive full pension instead 10% of it. 17. It is also stated that a land subjected to acquisition followed an award does not mean that original owner cannot transfer his right in favour of others while the reference petition are pending. He submits that the original owner can transfer his right to receive compensation in favour of others and for that the counsel for the petitioner made a reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of the Distt. Manager, Food Corporation of India and Others v. Shri Kailesh Chand and others decided in First Appeal No.-62 of 1999 alongwith batch of First Appeals vide its order dated 12.12.2013. Since the right to receive compensation is transferable thus even if any transaction was entered by the original owner in favour of the others, pending reference petition, was not illegal. Accordingly, the allegation of deciding the reference petition in favour of those who entered into the transaction much subsequent to the award, to their satisfaction, is unsustainable. 18. In fact the administration failed to prove any extraneous consideration in the hands of the petitioner in deciding the reference petition and accordingly the prayer is to set aside the order of punishment with acceptance of the petition. A direction be given to the respondents to pay entire pensionary benefits to the petitioner eliminating the period for which the petitioner remain member of Central Administrative Tribunal and received full salary. 19. The learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently contested the writ petition. A direction be given to the respondents to pay entire pensionary benefits to the petitioner eliminating the period for which the petitioner remain member of Central Administrative Tribunal and received full salary. 19. The learned Counsel for the respondents has vehemently contested the writ petition. He submits that none of the arguments made by learned Counsel for the petitioner are tenable. Referring to the charges, it is submitted they are of serious nature. The petitioner, while discharging the duties as Judicial Officer passed orders on reference petition with extraneous consideration. When it came to the notice of High Court, a charge-sheet was framed and given to the petitioner. For issuance of charge-sheet and for any action thereupon, the assent or approval of the President of India was not required as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner was not served with the charge-sheet for any act or omission while discharging duties as the member of Central Administrative Tribunal. The charges were in regard to his defaults as Judicial Officer under the superintendence of this High Court. The matter pertaining to act or omission as subordinate officer of the High Court could not have been dealt with by the President of India. 20. In fact the Governor alone was competent and for that the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. The competence of the High Court in reference to Article 235 of Constitution of India, regarding control over the subordinate officer has been dealt with by the Apex Court extensively in the case of Rajendra Singh Verma v. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2011 (10) SCC 1 . In view of the above, there is no substance in the first argument raised by the petitioner. 21. Learned Counsel for the respondents has further stated that the charge nos.-1 to 3 were rightly framed against the petitioner though the date of order passed on the reference petition are prior to 4 years of the charge-sheet. The period of 4 years has to be counted from the date, cognizance on the omission is taken by the High Court. Accordingly, there is no illegality in framing charge nos.-1 to 3 and it is not otherwise hit by Article 351-A of CSR. 22. The period of 4 years has to be counted from the date, cognizance on the omission is taken by the High Court. Accordingly, there is no illegality in framing charge nos.-1 to 3 and it is not otherwise hit by Article 351-A of CSR. 22. Coming to the third argument, it is submitted that the enquiry officer has dealt with the defence taken by the petitioner in the enquiry and after referring to the gist of the arguments and the defence taken by him, the conclusions have been drawn. It is thus, not correct to say that after referring to the arguments raised by the petitioner, no finding on it has been recorded. Thus, there is no substance even in the third argument raised by the petitioner for challenge to the order of punishment. 23. It is also submitted that the conclusions and findings recorded by the enquiry officer is not beyond the charges framed against the petitioner. It is rather in consonance to it. The petitioner has not raised any argument after going through the allegations made in the charge-sheet. The charge was that while deciding the reference petition, enhanced the compensation manifold, by ignoring the basic norms and Principle of law. It was to extend undue favour to the persons, going against all judicial norms and propriety. The amount of compensation was enhanced within a period of 4 and 1/2 years and after purchase of the property, already acquired. It was at a lesser rate than even the compensation. The basic issue was as to whether the enhancement of compensation was justified in the hands of the petitioner and as to whether it was enhanced for extraneous consideration. The substance of the charges has been answered by the enquiry officer at the end of the report. It cannot be said to be beyond scope of the charge-sheet. 24. In view of the above, the prayer of the learned Counsel for the respondents is not to accept the aforesaid arguments in the light of findings recorded by the enquiry officer. 25. The learned Counsel for the respondents has further made a reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sadhna Chaudhary v. State of U.P. in Writ Petition No.-170 (S/B) of 2006, dated 12.12.2018. 25. The learned Counsel for the respondents has further made a reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sadhna Chaudhary v. State of U.P. in Writ Petition No.-170 (S/B) of 2006, dated 12.12.2018. Therein also the issue of enhancement of compensation in the reference petition and punishment of dismissal on the charge of enhancement of compensation has been upheld by the High Court. The judgment aforesaid applies for the facts of the case. 26. The prayer is to dismiss the writ petition as none of the grounds raised by the petitioner are made out. 27. We have considered the rival submissions of parties and scanned the record carefully. 28. We have already quoted the charges framed against the petitioner and perusal of it would show that charge nos.-1 to 11 are almost similar in nature. The number of reference petition were decided with enhancement of compensation manifold. 29. In view of above, the substance of the charge nos.-1 to 11 are almost similar. 30. Before addressing the facts in reference to the charges framed against the petitioner, it would relevant to first deal with other arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 31. The first argument of the petitioner is regarding competence of the High Court to issue charge-sheet or to further proceed with the enquiry followed by recommendation for punishment. 32. The argument aforesaid has been raised due to the appointment of the petitioner as member of CAT prior to service of charge-sheet. It is stated that the approval of the President was required. We are unable to accept the first argument as the charge-sheet, under consideration, is not in regard to the act and omission while working as a member of CAT. It is pertaining to the act and omission while working as a Judicial Officer. For any misconduct while discharging the duties as a Judicial Officer, control remains with the High Court as per Article 235 of the Constitution of India. It is not only for issuance of the charge-sheet but to the extent of proposing punishment if it is of dismissal, removal or reduction of rank. 33. The final order has to be passed by the Governor of the State. In case of minor punishment or lesser punishment than referred to above, even the High Court is competent to pass the order. 34. 33. The final order has to be passed by the Governor of the State. In case of minor punishment or lesser punishment than referred to above, even the High Court is competent to pass the order. 34. The issue aforesaid has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Verma (supra). It was in reference to the Rules governing disciplinary action vis-a-vis the Constitutional provision. It was held that under Article 235, the control over the sub-ordinate judiciary vest in the High Court and any Regulation or Rule for it, cannot be read in conflict to the Constitutional provision. 35. In view of the above, we do not find any substances in the argument that the charge-sheet and for that even the impugned order could not have been passed without the approval of the President of India for the act and omission while working as a Judicial Officer under superintendence of this Court. The first ground raised by the petitioner is thus, rejected summarily. 36. The second issue/argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is in reference to charge No. 1 to 3. It is stated that the reference petitions therein were decided four years prior to the date of issuance of the charge-sheet and keeping in view the Article 351-A of CSR, charge-sheet for it could not have been served. 37. We find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reference petitions in regard to charge Nos. 1 to 3 were decided four years prior to the date of charge-sheet. In fact, charge-sheet was issued in the month of July, 2005 whereas reference petitions were decided in the month of May, 2001 i.e. four years prior to the charge-sheet. 38. In view of the above, the charge Nos. 1 to 3 could not have been accepted by the enquiry officer or the petitioner could not have been punished in reference to the same and accordingly, we accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in reference to charge Nos. 1 to 3. 39. The next issue/argument raised by the petitioner is in regard to the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. Reference of the last para of the enquiry report has been given where the enquiry officer has recorded his finding holding charges as proved other than charge Nos. 12. 1 to 3. 39. The next issue/argument raised by the petitioner is in regard to the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. Reference of the last para of the enquiry report has been given where the enquiry officer has recorded his finding holding charges as proved other than charge Nos. 12. It is stated that the finding has been recorded without dealing with the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet thereby, the defence of the petitioner was ignored. To appreciate the argument, we have again gone though the charges as well as the enquiry report. We find that the enquiry officer, while holding the charge officer guilty, has considered the relevant fact(s) of enhancement of compensation several times ignoring even the investment made by the subsequent purchaser and the right of the subsequent purchaser to claim compensation for the acquired land. The petitioner enhanced the compensation many times and that too by determining the rate in square yards, with the extraneous consideration. The defence taken by the petitioner has been given due care apart from the judgment of the Apex Court while answering the references. The enquiry officer also took note of the award and reference petition decided enhancing the compensation in respect of the acquisition of land of neighbouring area and other parameters for determination of just and fair compensation. 40. We find that in the enquiry, gist of the argument/defence taken by the petitioner has been recorded by the enquiry officer after referring to the plea raised by the administration. The finding has been recorded thereupon. The perusal of the finding does not show that a reference of the defence of the petitioner on each issue has been given but perusal of the conclusions shows that the enquiry officer has taken note of not only the charges framed against the petitioner but the material available on record to draw conclusions after referring to the defence. The perusal of the finding does not show that a reference of the defence of the petitioner on each issue has been given but perusal of the conclusions shows that the enquiry officer has taken note of not only the charges framed against the petitioner but the material available on record to draw conclusions after referring to the defence. The conclusions of enquiry officer are quoted hereunder:- "Land holders admitted that the lands were agriculture land and agriculture operation was being carried on still it has been observed that it was capable of being used for housing purposes without there being any iota of evidence; The cases relied upon by the S.L.A.O. have been referred for the sake of reference but no reason has been given that why those cases are not relevant; The valuation of agricultural land should be in Bigha and not in square yards as held by the Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Special Collector Gudawal v. Sri Laltha Bhupal (Smt.) and others, reported in 1997 (9) SCC, 628 while in the present case the rate has been determined in yards; It is settled that while awarding compensation on the basis of exemplar, the size of the plot and location are necessarily be taken into account which has been conveniently ignored against all judicial norms; Charged Officer has not given due weight to the purchase price paid by the claimants and enhanced the compensation exorbitantly by misusing his official position and throwing all judicial norms for determination of market value with a view to give unfair advantage to the claimants ranging from 10 to 24 times over and above the award given by S.L.A.O. For reference see table on page no. 8; The manner the case has been conducted and the exorbitant compensation has been awarded, leave no manner of doubt that the order was passed for an extraneous consideration; So far as the plea of the charged officer that the sanction of the Governor is not a valid, in as much as he has been appointed as Judicial Member in Central Administrative Tribunal by President of India and the concurrence of the President of India is also necessary for initiating the proceeding under Rule 9 (2) of AT Act, 1985, has no substance. The charged officer was the employee of the State Government and the charge sheet has been drawn for the action of the charged officer when he was the employee of the State Government. The sanction of the Governor is sufficient to initiate the proceedings." 41. The finding recorded by the enquiry officer shows that land holders admitted it to be an agricultural land but observing that the acquired land was capable of being used for housing purposes, the compensation was determined in each reference petition. The changing the nature of the land resulted in determination of compensation manifold. 42. The charge(s) was not as to how the reference petitions were decided but enhancement of compensation many times than determined by the land acquisition officer and that too with extraneous consideration. If the petitioner had determined the rate of the land by taking its prospective use, then extraneous consideration stand proved on the face of it. 43. If the finding is further analyzed than we find that in the order on reference petition(s), citation referred by the opposite party have been given but are not dealt with. There was no reason for the petitioner to do so. In fact, while referring to the judgment cited by the land owner, he was under obligation to deal with the citations referred by other party also. 44. In our opinion and in substance, we find that the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer are not beyond the charges framed by the respondents and ignoring the defence. The charges, reply thereto and evidence were taken into consideration for drawing the conclusions. 45. The perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet, justifying enhancement of the compensation, shows that therein reference to the several judgments of the Supreme Court. It does not however clarify as to how this would apply in the cases ignoring the nature of the land, the location and other parameters. The compensation has been enhanced by taking "Yard" and not "Bigha", though large chunk of land was acquired and compensation is to be determined in bighas. 46. In the light of the aforesaid, the reply or the defence to the charges remains for the sake of it. In any case, it has been referred by the enquiry officer followed by his finding. 47. 46. In the light of the aforesaid, the reply or the defence to the charges remains for the sake of it. In any case, it has been referred by the enquiry officer followed by his finding. 47. In view of the above, it cannot be said that either the conclusions or the findings have been recorded ignoring the defence taken by the petitioner and are beyond the charges framed against the petitioner. 48. The third argument is concluded with aforesaid finding. 49. The argument now remains in reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Vir Singh (supra). It is stated in the aforesaid case also, the reference petition was decided by Judicial Officer and subsequently subjected to disciplinary action. There the reference decided by the Judicial Officer were upheld by the Supreme Court. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the order of punishment was interfered. 50. To appreciate the argument, we have gone through the judgment and find that the facts are quite distinguishable. It is true that the Judicial Officer therein was also charge-sheeted in reference to the order on reference petition but then charges were quite different. It has been narrated by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case (supra). The charges were basically to entertain time barred reference petition and to enhance the amount thereupon. 51. The Apex Court found that plea in reference to the limitation was not raised either before the District Magistrate or subsequently before the Judicial Officer concerned. It was more so when, the District Magistrate was called upon to submit the objections. In absence of the issue, having not been raised in those matters, the charge-sheet was not taken to be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the order on the reference petition was upheld by the Supreme Court. 52. In the instant case also, the orders on reference have been upheld by the High Court and subsequently by the Apex Court but then it does not mean that the allegation levelled against the petitioner would be washed, when it is not only giving the facts of the case but with allegation of extraneous consideration. 53. If the facts of this case are taken into consideration, the award of these cases were passed long back before the other party entered into the sale-deed for the pending reference cases. 53. If the facts of this case are taken into consideration, the award of these cases were passed long back before the other party entered into the sale-deed for the pending reference cases. The enquiry officer has given a table to show date of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 and subsequent process including the compensation awarded by competent authority and the petitioner on reference petition. The said statement is quoted hereunder:- Date of order and L.A.R. No. Party Name Area of Land Acquired Name of the original tenure holder Compensation awarded by S.L.A.O. Date of Notification u/s 4 of the Act. Date of Deed & Investment Name of subsequent purchaser Comp. awarded by Charged Officer. Total enhancement. 23.05.01 176/87 Vijay Kumar Vij & others Vs. Collector, Agra and others. 6 Bigha & 4 Biswa. Jauhari Lal. R.6,875/- per Bigha. 30.06.79 29.01.96 Rs.45,000/-. Vijay Kumar Vij. Smt. Reeta Vij & Subhash Chandra Munjal Rs. 27/- per sq. yards (Rs.81,675/-per Bigha). 18,53,225.10 23.05.01 177/87 Sarumunja l Vs Collector Agra & anr. 1 Bigha 7 Biswa. Naraini Devi. Rs.6,875/-per Bigha. 30.06.79 29.01.96 Rs.10,000/- Smt. Sarumujnal Rs. 27/-per sq. yards (Rs.81,675/-per Bigha.) 5,17,315.50 31.07.01 238/87 Lala Ram Vs. Collector Agra & others. 2 Bigha, 2 Biswa. Lal Ram. Rs. 6,875/- per Bigha. 30.06.79 27.10.95 Rs. 10,000/- Km. Kavita and Rajendra Kumar Rs. 27/- per sq. Yards (Rs. 81.675/-per Bigha). 7,32,393.63 31.07.01236/87 Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Collector Agra 8 Bigha 13 Biswa Natthi Singh. Rs. 2599.60 per Bigha 30.06.79 25.04.90 Rs. 14,000/- Rakesh Kumar Jain Rs. 30/- per sq. yards (Rs.. 90,750/- per Bigha). 13,80,148/- 31.07.01 282/87 Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Collector Agra 10 Bigha 3 Biswa 4 Biswansi. Tikam Singh, Shyam Singh & Hukam Singh. Rs. 2599.60 per Bigha 30.06.79 19.01.90 Rs. 24,000/- Rakesh Kumar Jain Rs. 25/- per sq yards (75,625/- per Bigha). 32,50,128.28 31.07.01 285/87 Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. Collector Agra 8 Bigha 13 Biswa Pratap Singh Rs. 2599.60 per Bigha 30.06.79 25.01.90 Rs. 44,000/- Rakesh Kumar Jain Rs. 27/-  per sq. yards (Rs. 81,675/-per Bigha). 13,29,344 02.08.01 70/86 Smt. Mithilesh Jain Vs. Collector Agra. 2 Bigha, 2 Biswa & 13 Biswansi Amar Singh, Lal Singh, Bal Singh & Vijay Singh. Rs. 6284.40 per Bigha. 30.06.79 09.10.84 Rs.20,000/- Smt. Mithilesh Jain. Rs. 25/-per sq. yards. (Rs. 75,625/- per Bigha). 6,42,932/- 07.08.01 380/87 Smt. Neeta Vs. Collector Agra 7 Bigha, 3 Biswa & 12 Biswansis. Gulab Singh Rs. Collector Agra. 2 Bigha, 2 Biswa & 13 Biswansi Amar Singh, Lal Singh, Bal Singh & Vijay Singh. Rs. 6284.40 per Bigha. 30.06.79 09.10.84 Rs.20,000/- Smt. Mithilesh Jain. Rs. 25/-per sq. yards. (Rs. 75,625/- per Bigha). 6,42,932/- 07.08.01 380/87 Smt. Neeta Vs. Collector Agra 7 Bigha, 3 Biswa & 12 Biswansis. Gulab Singh Rs. 6040.75 30.06.79 18.01.84 Rs. 10,000/- Smt. Neeta Rs. 27/-per sq. yards (Rs. 81,625/- per Bigha). 21,71, 122 18.10.02 287/87 Smt. Mithilesh Vs. Collector Agra. 4 Bigha, 1 Biswa & 5 Biswansi s. Hari. Rs. 5199.21 per Bigha. 30.06.79. 08.07.87 Rs. 80,000/- Smt. Mithilesh Rs. 25/-per sq. yards (Rs. 75,625/-per Bigha). 38,00,000 10.02.02 237/87 Sudhir Kumar & another Vs. Collector Agra 1 Bigha, 15 Biswa & 12 Biswansi s. Bal Kishan Rs. 5199.21 per Bigha. 30.06.79 12.09.82 Rs. 1,50,000/ - Sudhir Kumar Jain and Ajit Singh Rs. 27/- per sq. yards (Rs. 75,625/-per Bigha). 8,37,6 02/- 19.05.03 53/84 Girish Kumar Goel Vs. Collector Agra & others. 13 Bigha, 4 Biswas & 13 Biswansi s. Sarvodaya Vidya Mandir through Manager Pramod Kumar Gupta. Rs. 2,250/-per Bigha. 27,0876 17.02.92 Rs. 1,30,000/ - Girish Kumar Goel. Rs. 18/-per sq. yards (Rs. 54,450/-per Bigha). 40,27, 75310 54. The statement quoted above shows that the date of notification under Section 4 so as the date of investment by the person on whose favour, the reference was decided by the petitioner. It was after several years of the notification for acquisition and the award. The State Government satisfied the award as the land owner received the amount of compensation and after that the other party entered into the litigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Distt. Manager, Food Corporation of India (supra). 55. It is a case where the subsequent beneficiary entered into the agreement to receive the compensation and not for purchase of the property resulting in transfer of the title. He entered into reference to receive enhanced compensation. 56. We do not want to enter into the question as to whether title of the property can be passed on after initiation of acquisition and even satisfaction of the award by making payment to the original owner. He entered into reference to receive enhanced compensation. 56. We do not want to enter into the question as to whether title of the property can be passed on after initiation of acquisition and even satisfaction of the award by making payment to the original owner. If it is made permissible, then an award ultimately resulting in transfer of title would be of no effect if the original owner can pass on the title even after the award and its satisfaction. 57. The aforesaid fact cannot be ignored and otherwise all these issues may not be there before the High Court or for the Apex Court while addressing the challenge to the orders passed by the petitioner on the reference petitions. We are not aware or apprised about the fact as to what grounds were raised to challenge the orders passed by the petitioner as main judgment in that case is not on record. What has been produced before us are the subsequent judgments where the first judgment of this Court was followed. 58. In view of the above, we are unable to accept even the last argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 59. In view of the discussions made above, we find that the punishment order in reference to charge Nos. 1 to 3 is not sustainable in the eye of the Law. The respondents could not have framed charges for an incidence four years prior to the charge-sheet but there is no ground to interfere in the find for charge No. 4 to 11. 60. In view of the above, we find reasons to cause interference in the order of punishment. It is for the reason that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is with a cumulative effect of all the charges and since we are not accepting the charge Nos. 1 to 3, the interference in the order of punishment is made. The pension of the petitioner reduced to the extent of 90% is substituted by 70% and with the aforesaid the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner would be entitled to the consequential benefit arising out of it.