High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/2866/2018allowed

Satish Kumar v. State Of Punjab & Others

2022-05-17Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi6 pages

"#$# %& '()(

*& +, *( - - *

!" # $%

&&&&& - *

( .,/ The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure P-4), vide which, a cut to the tune of 10% in pension of the petitioner has been imposed through out his life by the respondents as well as order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-7), vide which, the appeal dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 02.08.2017 has also been dismissed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was working as a Revenue Accountant with the respondent-Department, and while working on the said post, he was served a charge-sheet on 31.03.2009 under Section 8 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Regulations 1971'). Learned counsel submits that the allegations alleged against the petitioner in the said charge-sheet dated 31.03.2009

(Annexure P-1) was with regard to the exemption of the line charges, which the petitioner had dealt in a manner not envisaged under the rules concerned. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner filed the reply on 26.06.2009 (Annexure P-2) to the said charge-sheet dated 31.03.2009 and an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations alleged against the petitioner in the said charge-sheet dated 31.03.2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though the said charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner in the year 2009, but the same was not taken to its logical end till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.04.2010 from the respondent-Department and after his retirement, the respondents passed an order dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure P-4), imposing a punishment of a cut to the tune of 10% in pension of the petitioner for life.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure P-5), giving the details that he is not guilty of the allegations alleged in the charge-sheet dated 31.03.2009 and even the punishment imposed upon him vide order dated 12.01.2015 is not proportionate to the charges alleged in the charge-sheet dated 31.03.2009. Learned counsel further submits that the said appeal dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure P-5) was also rejected by the respondents, vide order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P7). The said impugned orders dated 12.01.2015 and 02.08.2017, being Annexures P-4 and Annexure P-7, respectively, are under challenge in the present petition.

0 Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply, wherein it has been mentioned that as the petitioner was found guilty in the disciplinary proceedings pending against him, therefore, a cut to the tune of 10% in his pension has been imposed by the respondent-Department, which is commensurate to the allegations alleged against him in the charge-sheet dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P-1). Further, the respondents have mentioned that the Appellate Authority, after considering all the facts, came to the conclusion that no interference is needed in the impugned order dated 12.01.2015.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. The question whether a cut in pension of an employee for life can be imposed or not by the Department is no more res integra. The Division Bench of this Court, while passing order in CWP-568-2013, titled as "Jagdish Mitter Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and others", decided on 19.05.2014, held that a cut in pension of an employee throughout his life is totally disproportionate, where the finding is related to the lack of supervision. In the present case, the situation is somewhat similar. As per the allegations alleged against the petitioner, he did not pass an appropriate order on the application submitted for the change of line connection from M.S. category to S.P. category.

That being so, whether the 10% cut in his pension for life is totally disproportionate or not and cannot be sustained is the question to be answered in this petition. Further, order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Appellate Authority is totally non-speaking.

1 that all the grounds raised by an employee in an appeal needs to be considered by the Appellate Authority and the appeal has to be decided by giving a reason, either for accepting or rejecting the same, so that the employee knows, so as to what weighed in the mind of the Appellate Authority, while passing the said order. In the present case, the order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Appellate Authority is totally cryptic and the appeal dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure P-5), filed by the petitioner has been dismissed only by stating that the Appellate Authority has considered all the facts and came to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while passing judgment in Civil Appeal No.3615 of 2011, titled as "U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Sheo Narain Kushwaha and others", decided on 25.04.2011, held that the order in appeal has to be sufficiently reasoned, so as to disclose the application of mind. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-

# !

)

' ( )

* +

, *"(

-./&0123 !!4405

# !

7 '8

( * ';4<<< !

0=&

6 7:

# !

? 2.;

# !

123

# !

Keeping in view the above, impugned order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-7) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to consider it once again whether the punishment of cut in pension for life imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the charges alleged against him in the charge-sheet dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P-1) or not, especially when the enquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner and further whether cut in pension can be imposed for a period of lifetime keeping in view the judgment passed in Jagdish Mitter's case (supra). Let the Appellate Authority pass the said fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Allowed in the above terms.

'()( .- *

- /

( )* + , ( -