9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ension after excluding the period of suspension (9 years and 26 days). In other words, the respondents while calculating the qualifying service of the appellant for determining his pension did not take into account the period of suspension from 06.02.1990 to 01.03.1999. We are of the view that the period of suspension should have been taken into account by the respondents for determining the appellant s pension and we accordingly do so. Appeal succeeds and is allowed in part only to the extent indicated above in relation to fixation of appellant s pension. The respondents are accordingly directed to re-determine the appellant s pension by taking into account the period of suspension (06.02.1990 to 01.03.1999) and then pay to the appellant arrears of the difference amount from the date he became eligible to claim pension and then to continue to pay the appellant re-determined pension regularly in future as per Rules. It is to be done within three months from the date of receipt of this order. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short "the CCS Rules") which included the statement of articles of charges and other relevant documents. 8) The disciplinary proceedings, which commenced on 18.07.1990, continued for more than nine years. Pending disciplinary proceedings, the appellant sought revocation of suspension order but such representation made by the appellant was not considered. Subsequently, vide order dated 01.03.1999, the then District & Sessions Judge, exercising the powers conferred under Clause C of sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 of CCS Rules revoked the order of suspension with immediate effect. The issue, whether the period of suspension is to be reckoned as period on duty, was not decided and directed to be taken up after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. 9) The District & Sessions Judge, Delhi passed two orders dated 27.10.1999 and 28.10.1999 imposing a major penalty of compulsory retirement on the appellant. It was also ordered that the appellant will not be entitled to any amount more than the allowances already paid during the period of suspension. 10) Challenging the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Administrative Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the appellant's pension and other retiral benefits. 19) In reply, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. As regards the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, his reply was that since the departmental proceedings were delayed due to the appellant's seeking frequent adjournments from time to time and hence he is not entitled to claim the benefit of period of suspension for fixing his pension which, according to him, was rightly fixed after excluding the suspension period. 20) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force only in the third submission of the appellant's counsel whereas the first two submissions are concerned, we find no substance. 21) We have perused the record of the departmental proceedings and find that the inquiry officer fully observed principle of natural justice while conducting the departmental proceedings. It is not in dispute that the appellant was served with detailed charge sheet along with the documents referred to therein. He filed reply to the charge sheet. The parties were then given full opportunity to adduce evidence and which they avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts of the case that the case of the appellant satisfies any of the aforementioned grounds so as to entitle this Court to interfere in the quantum of punishment and hence, in our considered view, the punishment of compulsory retirement inflicted upon the appellant by the appointing authority having regard to the nature of proved charges appears to be just and proper and does not call for any interference. 28) This takes us to the last submission of learned counsel for the appellant, which in our considered view, deserves serious consideration. 29) One cannot dispute in this case that the suspension period was unduly long. We also find that the delay in completion of the departmental proceedings was not wholly attributable to the appellant but it was equally attributable to the respondents as well. Due to such unreasonable delay, the appellant naturally suffered a lot because he and his family had to survive only on suspension allowance for a long period of 9 years. 30) We are constrained to observe as to why the departmental proceeding, which involved only one charge and that too uncomplicated, have taken more than 9 years to conclude the departmental inquiry. No justificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
