Union of India and Ors. v. Dr. A.K. Mukhopadhyay

1. The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution ofIndia, essentially assails the impugned Order dated 24^^ April,2019,rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal,Principal W.P.(C) 2696/2020 Page 1 of[4] 2020:DHC:3942-DB Bench, New Delhi, in OA No.100/2537/2015, whereby, the penalty imposed upon the respondent by the Department of Defence Production,Ministry ofDefence,Under Secretary to the Governmentof India,vide Order dated 18^*^ September,2014;imposing upon the latter the penalty of withholding of 10% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to him for a period of one year, has been reduced to withholding of5% of pension for a period of six months,in the facts and circumstances ofthe case.,.r' '■

2. Having heard learned counSefi appearing on behalf of the petitioner and examined in particular^. paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment, we arelpf.fhe view that, no interference is called for, in the present petition.

3. In this regard, we must observe that the^pnly lapse attributable to the respondent was that, lie •hhd'-fbr\^dfde^ subject file to the Controller, though it was required to be sent through the Joint Controller concerned. In this behalf, we note that, it was observed by the Tribunal that, it is an admitted position that the Joint Controller -I was not present on the 26^^ February, 2008, the relevant day on which W.P. (C) 2696/2020 the subject decision taken by the respondent was rendered.It is further recorded bythe Tribunalin this regard that,subsequentuponthe taking ofthe subject decision by the respondent,the Controller approved the proposal and furthermore, that neither any material was in fact purchased by the Department consequent upon said decision, nor was any financial loss occasioned to the State. In fact, it is categorically recorded in the impugned order that the relevant file was unavailable during the pendency ofthe enquii^vthereby unequivocally indicating that the State did not consider:the actibh ofthe respondent as a serious infringement ofthe rules. ■, ■ ^

4. Having said that howeyer,fhe,impu^bd order proceeded to find that the respondent ought to?,havd,e^erc restraint and waited for the return ofthe Joint Controller instead ofproceeding in the matter in haste.It is in these circunistahcds^rthaffhe]^ ofwithholding of pension was reduced from 10% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to the respondent for a period of one year, to one of withholding of5% ofpension for a period ofsix months;since the same was felt adequate and reasonable.Asstated herein above,we do notfind any W.P. (02696/2020 Page3of[4] reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Central Administrative Tribunal particularly from the standpoint of the proportionality ofthe penaltyimposed,in the backdrop in the facts and circumstances,elaborated hereinbefore.

5. The petition is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL fJUDGE) -■ i:\i-tALWANTSINGH ■", (JUDGE) MARCH 11, 2020 RS