Supreme Court Revokes Stay Order in Disciplinary Proceedings, Emphasizes Fairness

The Supreme Court set aside the stay order granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed prompt continuation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer performing judicial functions. It emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the need for caution in such matters. The Court declined to interfere with the pension payment issue but allowed the respondent to retire voluntarily during the disciplinary enquiry. The Court instructed relevant authorities to take necessary action and highlighted the importance of fair play and expeditious hearings.

---

---

Issues:
- Challenge against orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal
- Validity of stay granted in disciplinary proceedings
- Consideration of disciplinary action against officer performing judicial functions
- Payment of pension pending enquiry
- Voluntary retirement during pending disciplinary enquiry

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard appeals challenging two orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) concerning disciplinary proceedings and pension payment. The first order restrained the appellant from proceeding with disciplinary actions against the respondent, while the second order directed payment of the full pension value if the commuted value was refunded. The Court expressed astonishment at the stay granted by the tribunal, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the need for caution in such matters. The Court set aside the stay order and directed the disciplinary proceedings to continue promptly. It clarified that disciplinary action can be taken against officers performing judicial functions if their actions indicate culpability. Regarding the pension payment issue, the Court declined to interfere, leaving the option open for the appellants to seek relief from the tribunal. The Court directed the tribunal to consider further hearing of the respondent's application by a different bench for impartiality.

In a surprising development, the respondent was allowed to retire voluntarily during the disciplinary enquiry, raising questions about the consideration of his retirement application in light of the pending charges. The Court noted its limitations in addressing this issue further. The Court instructed copies of the order to be sent to relevant authorities for necessary action. It emphasized that its observations were made in an appeal from an interim order and should not influence the final decision by the tribunal. The Court allowed the appeals without costs, highlighting the need for a fair and expeditious hearing of the respondent's pending application. The Court stressed the importance of providing relevant documents and adhering to fair play in the proceedings.

---