Court sets aside pension cut, finding procedural violations, lack of merit. Refund ordered.

The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the punishment order cutting the petitioner's pension. The court found procedural violations and lack of merit in the charges against the petitioner. It directed the refund of any amount recovered from the petitioner and closed the related Miscellaneous Petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the punishment order cutting pension.
2. Procedural compliance under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
3. Merits of the charges against the petitioner.
4. Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the punishment order cutting pension:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the final order passed by the first respondent on 07.05.2014, which imposed a punishment of cutting the pension at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month for three years. The petitioner sought directions to allow him to receive full pension. The first respondent issued a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, alleging that the petitioner facilitated a trader to evade sales tax by issuing seven transit passes.

2. Procedural compliance under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order violated Rules 9(1)(a), 2(a), and 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Specifically, the petitioner contended that there was no specific finding of pecuniary loss to the government and that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) was not consulted before passing the order. The court emphasized that Rule 9(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules requires consultation with the TNPSC if the petitioner does not agree to the withholding or withdrawing of the pension. The court noted that such consultation is mandatory and that the lack of consultation vitiated the order.

3. Merits of the charges against the petitioner:
The petitioner was charged with issuing false transit passes, which allegedly facilitated tax evasion. However, the Enquiry Officer found the charges 'not proved.' The disciplinary authority disagreed and issued a show-cause notice, but the petitioner provided a detailed explanation denying the charges. The court observed that the petitioner was merely an issuing authority and that the assessing authority should have taken action against the registered dealer if there were discrepancies. The court also noted that no proceedings were initiated against the dealer, and the assessment order for the relevant period had become final and conclusive.

4. Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings:
The charge memo was issued on 01.07.2008 for alleged misconduct that occurred in 2004-2005, after the petitioner retired on 31.05.2006. The court found that there was an unreasonable delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, which was not properly explained.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order due to procedural violations and lack of merit in the charges. The court directed that any amount recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order should be refunded within four weeks. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed.

---