Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Haripal ORDER
K. Haripal, Member (J)
1. The question posed for consideration in this Original Application is whether pension can be commuted suo-motu by the Pension Sanctioning Authority, behind the back of the employee.
2. The admitted facts are as follows:
The applicant was holding the post of Supervisor in PB-2 with GP Rs. 4200/- in the Sports Authority of India, SAI for short, in Kozhikode and Karyavattom. While so, serious acts of mis-conduct were noticed against him which necessitated initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Memo of charges and statement of allegations were served, following which an inquiry was conducted and all the four articles of charge were found against him. He was given notice and after giving opportunity of being heard, the first respondent passed the Annexure A-1 order imposing a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. It was also found that he had caused a loss of Rs. 12,08,188/- which was ordered to be recovered from his terminal benefits. Even though he preferred an appeal, by Annexure A-2 order, the Appellate Authority dismissed the same and confirmed the Annexure A-1 order. Thereafter, his pension was fixed and by Annexure A-3 order, among other things, commuted value of pension of Rs. 3,97,577/- was also recovered from him. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking to quash A-3 order to the extent it commutes 40% of the pension and withholding the entire amount so commuted, for directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs. 3,97,577/- commuted in terms of Annexure A-3 and to restore his pension as originally sanctioned and to direct the respondents to grant arrears of commuted portion of pension for the period from 1.1.2016 with consequential benefits including interest at the rate of 12 % per annum, calculated on a monthly basis with effect from 1.2.2016, till the date of full and final settlement of the same.
3. The Original Application has been opposed by the respondents. According to them, the applicant was compulsorily retired on proof of grave acts of mis-conduct on his part. He had committed misappropriation of huge sum of money. The acts of misappropriation was noticed while he was working in the SAI, Kozhikode. Then he was transferred to SAG, Alappuzha. There also he repeated the very same misconduct. Thus, disciplinary proceedings was initiated which ended in Annexure A1 order of compulsory retirement. It stands confirmed by Annexure A-2. Everything was done following procedural formalities which has become final and the applicant does not seek interference with those proceedings by this Tribunal. Incidentally, it is pointed out that on account of the acts of commission of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust, two cases - CC 326 of 2016 under Sections 409 and 420 IPC before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode and CC 71/2014 alleging offence under Sections 471, 409 and 420 IPC are pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. So the respondents contend that the applicant does not deserve any sympathy and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the commutation of pension made by the respondents suo-motu is illegal. That was done without any application filed by the applicant nor he was subjected to any medical examination. In spite of submitting Annexures A-4 and A-5 representations, the illegality was not un-done and that prompted the applicant to approach this Tribunal. The learned counsel reiterated that the applicant did not file petition for commuting any portion of his pension and therefore, Annexure A3 order is illegal and liable to be interfered with.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Standing Counsel for the respondents sub........