1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.12.2002 passed by the respondents by imposing monthly cut in pension of Rs. 2500/ for 15 years.
2.0 The petitioner who was working as a Superintending Engineer in the State Government retired on superannuation on 31.10.2001. He was served with chargesheet on 18.07.2001 for holding departmental inquiry in respect of four charges pertaining to alleged lapses on his part when he was working as Executive Engineer during the period from October 1994 to February 1996. An inquiry officer was appointed and after conducting inquiry he submitted his report. The State Government agreed with the inquiry report and hence a show cause notice was issued to him to make his written representation against the findings of the inquiry officer. On 31.12.2002, the State Government passed order by imposing monthly cut in pension of Rs. 2500/ for 15 years on the petitioner which is challenged by preferring the present petition.
3.0 Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner the penalty imposed by the respondent authority is disproportionate and the same may be reduced or the period of imposing penalty for 15 years may be reduced.
4.0 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the departmental proceedings got vitiated since the petitioner was not supplied copies of the relevant and material documents as requested by him. The petitioner requested the State Government to provide him the copies of the documents stated in the list of the evidence attached to the charge sheet but the same was not complied with.
5.0 As a result of hearing and perusal of the documents on record, it is found that certain documents could not be supplied to the petitioner as requested by him. For example, Field Book was not available and hence the same was not given even though the same is also basis of the chargesheet. This position could not be disputed by the other side. It also appears that no oral evidence was led in the inquiry. It is alleged that neither the statements nor the preliminary inquiry report was given to the petitioner. Therefore it appears that there is some procedural lacuna in the matter. However, in view of the aforesaid lapse, it is not in the interest of justice to remand the matter at this stage to hear the matter afresh inasmuch as the inquiry was conducted way back in the year 2001 and it would take much time to decide the matter again.
6.0 Admittedly the petitioner has already retired. The inquiry was initiated at the fag end of his career. The alleged lapses were for the period from October 1994 to February 1996. The Inquiry report was against the petitioner and therefore the penalty was imposed. Having given a thoughtful consideration and also considering the facts mentioned hereinabove, and also the age of the petitioner, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met by reducing the period of penalty to 5 years instead of 15 years. Accordingly the period of 15 years is reduced to 5 years and the rest of the penalty shall remain unaltered. The petition is partly allowed. Rule is made to the aforesaid extent.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*