Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
SITA RAM YADAVA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/11/1995
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH (J)
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 920 1995 SCC Supl. (4) 618
1995 SCALE (6)335
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (the tribunal)
dated July 18, 1990 upholding the order of the president of
India under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Service (Pension)
Rules, 1972 (the Pension Rules) withholding the entire
monthly pension admissible to the appellant and also denying
the death-cum-retirement gratuity to which the appellant may
be entitled under the rules.
The appellant, Sita Ram Yadava, was working as a Sorter
in the Railway Mail Service at Kanpur. He was absent from
duty from October 11, 1973 to July 30, 1974. In the night
between October 20/21, 1973, 70 gms of illicit opium was
recovered from Sita Ram Yadava who at that time stated that
he was the son of Bhagwati Prasad. He was arrested by the
Excise Inspector under the Opium Act. According to the
respondents the arrested person was none other than the
appellant who according to the railway record is son of
Jhullan Prasad. Sita Ram Yadava was convicted under Section
9 of the Opium Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months. Appeal filed by him was
dismissed by the Sessions Judge. Criminal Revision filed by
Yadava was dismissed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Madha
Pradesh High Court on February 28, 1975.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
appellant and as a consequence he was dismissed from service
by the order dated December 21, 1974 under Rule 19(i) of the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1965 (the Rules). The appellant preferred appeal
which was allowed with a direction to the disciplinary
authority to hold an inquiry under Rule 19 of the Rules.
Since the case of the appellant before the disciplinary
authority was that Sita Ram Yadava who was convicted under
the Opium Act was a different person than the appellant, the
appellate authority further directed that the disciplinary
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
authority should properly investigate into the identity of
the petitioner/convict and thereafter pass final order in
the matter. The disciplinary authority as a result of the
inquiry passed the order dated June 11, 1984 dismissing the
appellant from service. A finding was recorded that the
appellant was the same person who had been convicted by the
criminal court under the Opium Act.
The appellant preferred appeal against the order dated
June 11, 1984 and once again the appellate authority allowed
the appeal and directed the disciplinary authority to give
further hearing to the appellant. It was also directed that
opportunity to cross-examine the hand-writing expert should
also be given. Before the departmental inquiry could be
completed, the appellant retired from service on March 31,
1985. The inquiry was, thereafter, converted into one under
the Pension Rules. The disciplinary authority finally
recorded the finding that it was the appellant who was
convicted under the Opium Act. The proceedings were
forwarded to the President of India for final orders. The
President proposed the provisional punishment of withholding
the petitioner’s pension permanently and not disbursing
death-cum-retirement gratuity to him. Accordingly, a show
cause notice dated August 23, 1985 was issued to the
appellant and he submitted his reply. The Union public
Service Commission was consulted which approved the proposed
punishment. Finally the President passed the order of
punishment on May 5, 1987.
The Tribunal in the impugned judgment held as under:-
"We do not think, therefore, that there
is any doubt in the authenticity of the
court papers whose negatives were made
over to its Expert. So far as the
photographs from the Service Book and
taking of specimen signatures and thumb
impressions by the Expert himself on
19.1.1984 is concerned, there is no
reason to doubt their genuineness. All
these papers, according to the report of
the Expert, were obtained from the
office of the Senior Superintendent of
Post Offices/the disciplinary authority.
The papers, therefore, came from a
proper custody ...........There is no
reason, therefore, to hold that the
materials which were examined by the
Expert were not reliable or appropriate
materials for the purposes of
determining the identity of the
petitioner with the convict of the
criminal case."
In the penultimate para of the judgment the Tribunal
finally observed as under:
"These are all the points which have
arisen in this case. We notice that not
only the disciplinary authority appears
to have considered all the relevant
materials, but the case was also
considered by the Union Public Service
Commission, who submitted their
recommendations dated 19.3.1987
(Annexure-14). A perusal of this
document shows that the Commission
considered at length the disciplinary
proceedings including the appellate
order requiring the investigation to be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
made to fix the petitioner’s identity.
After the Inquiring officer’s report
dated 25.9.1985, the reply dated 13-9-85
given by the petitioner is also the
Commission. In para 5 of Annexure-14 it
is said that the Commission have
examined the records of the case
carefully and saw no reason to differ
from the findings of the Inquiring
Officer arrived at on the basis of the
totality of the evidence examined during
during the enquiry and confirmed the
view of the Inquiring Officer that the
petitioner is the same person, who was
convicted in the criminal case.
Apparently the Commission has bestowed
its attention to the controversy it is
not a case of non-application of mind."
We see no ground to interfere with the findings of fact
reached by the departmental authorities and upheld by the
Tribunal. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions
reached by the Tribunal.
This Court, while granting special leave, passed the
following order :
"Special leave granted. By the
Presidential order dated 5.5.1987, both
pension and DCRG have been withheld.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that so far as gratuity is concerned,
the matter stands covered by this
Court’s decision in D.V. Kapur V. Union
of India, 1990 (4) SCC 314. That case
turned on the interpretation of Rule 9
of the Civil Services Conduct Rules,
1972. In paragraph 10 of the judgment
after referring to the Rule, this Court
pointed out that the right to gratuity
being a statutory right could be taken
away by a valid Rule only and since Rule
9 did not empower the withholding of
gratuity and no other rule was pointed
out which permitted the withholding of
gratuity, the order withholding gratuity
could not be sustained. We enquired of
Mr. Tulsi, learned ASG, if he was in a
position to point out any Rule which
entitled the President to withhold DCRG.
He was not able to do so. It, therefore,
prima facie appears that the contention
urged by counsel in regard to gratuity
is well founded.
We, therefore, by this interim order
direct the release of DCRG to the
petitioner on the petitioner giving an
undertaking to this Court to refund the
same in the event this Court so
directs."
It is not necessary for us to go into the question
whether death-cum-retirement, gratuity can be withheld under
the Pension Rules. Since the said gratuity has already been
paid to the appellant, we are of the view that it would be
in the interest of justice to permit the appellant to retain
the same. He shall, however, not be entitled to the pension.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4