OA No.060/00207/2016. Case: Navin Kumar Nanchahal Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No.060/00207/2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate and For Resondents: Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Advocate |
| Judges | Mr. M.S. Sullar, Member (J) |
| Issue | Companies Act, 1956 - Section 25; Pension Rules, 1972 - Rule 10(8) |
| Judgement Date | May 11, 2017 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Mr.M.S. Sullar, Member (J), (Chandigarh Bench) (Oral)
-
Applicant, Navin Kumar Nanchahal, son of Late Sh. Ved Prakash Nanchahal, has assailed the impugned orders dated 24/28.07.2015 (Annexure A-1) and dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure A-2), whereby recovery of an amount of Rs.2,66,580/- + Dearness relief, from his pension, was ordered to be effected, on account of his taking commercial employment, after retirement, without obtaining sanction and for violation of Rule 10 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for brevity -- Pension Rules, 1972--).
-
The pith and substance of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant Original Application (OA), and exposited from the record is, that after completion of his tenure, the applicant retired from service on 31.10.2011, from the post of Principal of Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Chandigarh (For short -- DAIHM, Chandigarh--), on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, he got employment, by virtue of a Service Agreement dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure A-3) with the Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI), Institute of Hospitality Management, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which is stated to be non-commercial organization, as per Life Certificate 25.11.2013 (Annexure A-4) submitted by the applicant.
-
The case set up by the applicant, in brief, in so far as, relevant is, that the respondents issued a Notice (SCN) dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure A-5), to show cause as to why the impugned amount be not deducted from his pension, to which the applicant filed the reply dated 20.03.2014 (Annexure A-6). It was alleged that the respondents without considering the pleas raised by the applicant, and without verifying the facts, issued another notice dated 23.06.2014 (Annexure A-7) for recovery of pointed amount from his pension w.e.f. 01.11.2011 to July, 2012 along with interest. He again submitted his detailed reply dated 05.07.2014 (Annexure A-8), but the respondents issued the impugned orders dated 24/28.07.2015 (Annexure A-1) and dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure A-2), without considering the replies, and started recovery from the amount of his pension, in a very casual manner.
-
Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the instant OA, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures A-1 and A-2), on the following grounds:-
-- i) That admittedly recovery from pension is a major punishment and such a punishment cannot be awarded without holding proper departmental inquiry and full-fledged inquiry was required under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Hence, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned orders A-1 and A-2 is not sustainable and liable to be quashed.
ii) That the very base of the allegation of the respondents is without any foundation in as much as applicant had not concealed anything from the respondents, rather he himself disclosed the factum of taken employment by him after retirement, which was not a commercial organization, in terms of Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and without verifying that fact, respondents have started recovery. This shows non-application of the mind and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.
iii) That in the administrative action the doctrine of equality Article 14 is required to be followed as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3186 of 2008 titled Man Singh Versus State of Haryana and others.
iv) That the action of the respondent department is harsh, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of principles of natural justice and as such is not sustainable in the eyes of law.--
-
Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail, in all, the applicants claim that although he got the employment in non-commercial organization after his retirement, but the respondents have illegally started recovery of the impugned amount from his pension, in the garb of violation of Rule 10 of Pension Rules, 1972. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the applicant seeks to...
To continue reading
Request your trial