1992 (3) TMI 343 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Tribunal correct to restrain appellant from proceeding further with the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in terms of the charge-sheet filed by the appellant and directed that in case the commuted value of the pension payable to the respondent was refunded the respondent should be paid the full value of the pension from the due date including the arrears pending the proceedings? Held that - In a case like this the tribunal we feel should have been very careful before granting stay in a disciplinary proceeding at an interlocutory stage. The imputations made against the respondent were extremely serious and the facts alleged if proved would have established misconduct and misbehaviour. It is surprising that without even a counter being filed at an interim stage the tribunal without giving any reasons and without apparently considering whether the memorandum of charges deserved to be enquired into or not granted a stay of disciplinary proceedings as it has done. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that a copy of this order should be forwarded to the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal so that he may consider whether further hearing of the application made by the respondent should be proceeded with by a bench presided over by him or a Bench other than the one which has passed the impugned order. We do not intend to cast any aspersions on the members of the tribunal who have passed the order in the absence of more concrete material. But we certainly feel that in the facts and circumstances it is desirable that the same Bench of the tribunal should not proceed with further hearing of the application. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge against orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal
- Validity of stay granted in disciplinary proceedings
- Consideration of disciplinary action against officer performing judicial functions
- Payment of pension pending enquiry
- Voluntary retirement during pending disciplinary enquiry

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard appeals challenging two orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) concerning disciplinary proceedings and pension payment. The first order restrained the appellant from proceeding with disciplinary actions against the respondent, while the second order directed payment of the full pension value if the commuted value was refunded. The Court expressed astonishment at the stay granted by the tribunal, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the need for caution in such matters. The Court set aside the stay order and directed the disciplinary proceedings to continue promptly. It clarified that disciplinary action can be taken against officers performing judicial functions if their actions indicate culpability. Regarding the pension payment issue, the Court declined to interfere, leaving the option open for the appellants to seek relief from the tribunal. The Court directed the tribunal to consider further hearing of the respondent's application by a different bench for impartiality.

In a surprising development, the respondent was allowed to retire voluntarily during the disciplinary enquiry, raising questions about the consideration of his retirement application in light of the pending charges. The Court noted its limitations in addressing this issue further. The Court instructed copies of the order to be sent to relevant authorities for necessary action. It emphasized that its observations were made in an appeal from an interim order and should not influence the final decision by the tribunal. The Court allowed the appeals without costs, highlighting the need for a fair and expeditious hearing of the respondent's pending application. The Court stressed the importance of providing relevant documents and adhering to fair play in the proceedings.