Competent authority must independently consider the disciplinary grievance and pass a reasoned order after effective hearing.

The applicant, a retired Section Officer of the Department of Economic Affairs, challenged departmental proceedings initiated against him under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, read with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, pursuant to a charge memorandum dated 18 December 2018.

The sole charge related to an alleged conspiracy during January–March 2015 to pilfer confidential Foreign Investment Promotion Board documents and pass them to a private consultant for illegal gratification.

The applicant contended that the charge was based only on circumstantial inferences and intercepted conversations referring to “Samaan”, without direct evidence, documentary linkage, or any witness having seen him handling or handing over confidential documents.

The inquiry resulted in three successive inquiry reports dated 02 December 2020, 14 October 2021, and 17 January 2023, followed by UPSC Advice dated 23 June 2026 recommending withholding 20% of the applicant’s monthly pension for five years.

The Advice was forwarded to him through an Office Memorandum dated 28 July 2026, requiring his representation within 15 days.

The applicant alleged denial of certified copies and inspection of original documents, procedural irregularities in the conduct of the inquiry, failure to examine him under Rule 14(18) and to obtain his defence statement under Rule 14(16), and unexplained delay in concluding the proceedings.

He also claimed that his pension, gratuity, and leave encashment had been withheld during the proceedings.

Whether the applicant’s grievances concerning the legality and procedural validity of the disciplinary proceedings, including alleged denial of documents, inspection, examination, and opportunity of defence, should be considered by the competent authority before passing a final order.

Whether the competent authority should consider the applicant’s objections to the prolonged delay, evidentiary deficiencies, inquiry reports, and UPSC Advice before imposing any pensionary penalty.

Whether the Tribunal should itself adjudicate the merits of the disciplinary charge at that stage, or require the competent authority to first pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The proceedings were governed by Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, concerning departmental proceedings against a pensioner and the withholding or withdrawal of pensionary benefits, read with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties, including supply of documents, examination of witnesses, opportunity to present a defence, and examination of the charged officer.

The Tribunal also applied the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness, requiring the competent authority to provide an effective opportunity of hearing, consider the applicant’s representations and supporting documents, and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

No final determination on the evidentiary merits or validity of the disciplinary charge was made by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had raised substantial grievances concerning the absence of direct evidence, reliance on circumstantial material, non-supply and non-inspection of original documents, alleged departures from the prescribed inquiry procedure, repeated remands, and prolonged delay.

Since the UPSC Advice had only been forwarded to the applicant for his representation and no final penalty order had yet been passed, the Tribunal considered it appropriate for the competent authority to examine these objections at the first instance.

Rather than adjudicating the merits of the charge or expressing any view on the UPSC Advice, the Tribunal directed an independent consideration of the applicant’s grievance in accordance with law, after granting an effective hearing and considering the relied-upon representations and documents.

It directed the competent authority to consider the applicant’s grievance, afford him an effective opportunity of hearing, examine his representations and supporting documents, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

The authority was directed to act independently and without being influenced by any observation in the Tribunal’s order, and to communicate its decision to the applicant forthwith.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.