Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a retired government servant, challenged an order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a penalty of withholding 100% monthly pension and 100% gratuity on permanent basis. The petitioner had served as a Superintendent in the Central Excise Department and retired on 31.10.2011. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in 2013 alleging certain irregularities during his service. The inquiry officer submitted a report holding the charges as proved. The Disciplinary Authority, without providing the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report or giving him an opportunity to make representation, passed the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and that the penalty was disproportionate. The respondents argued that the order was passed after following due procedure. The Court analyzed the facts and found that the Disciplinary Authority had not complied with the requirement of supplying the inquiry report and seeking the petitioner's response before imposing the penalty. The Court also observed that withholding 100% pension and gratuity permanently was a severe penalty that could not be sustained. Relying on principles of proportionality and natural justice, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court directed that the fresh order be passed within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Penalty of Withholding Pension and Gratuity - Rule 9 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of withholding 100% monthly pension and 100% gratuity on permanent basis. The Court held that such a penalty is disproportionate and violative of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Proportionality - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The Court held that while exercising writ jurisdiction, it can interfere with disciplinary orders if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate. The penalty of withholding entire pension and gratuity permanently was found to be excessive and not commensurate with the alleged misconduct. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order imposing penalty of withholding 100% monthly pension and 100% gratuity on permanent basis is sustainable in law and whether it violates principles of natural justice and proportionality.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.02.2023 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Proportionality in disciplinary proceedings
- Natural justice
- Withholding of pension and gratuity
- Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules
- 1972
- Judicial review of disciplinary orders
