Disciplinary penalty based on later-set-aside adjudication order required fresh reconsideration under pension rules.

A disciplinary finding of guilt was not perverse where the employee, though not personally examining goods, occupied a supervisory post and should have noticed the unusual manner in which export goods were moved for examination; the evidence supported a duty to exercise greater caution, supervision, and, if necessary, sampling or expert examination. The disciplinary penalty could not, however, be sustained where it was materially founded on an earlier adjudication penalty that was later set aside and the adjudication proceedings were dropped; the matter required fresh consideration of the effect of those later orders, including the impact on grave misconduct and pension-rule consequences. The penalty was therefore sent back for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the finding of guilt recorded in the disciplinary inquiry suffered from perversity; (ii) whether the disciplinary penalty could be sustained when one of the factors relied upon was an adjudication penalty that was subsequently set aside and the adjudication proceedings were dropped.

Issue (i): whether the finding of guilt recorded in the disciplinary inquiry suffered from perversity.

Analysis: The petitioner, though not required to personally examine the goods, held a supervisory post and was expected to notice the unusual and circuitous manner in which the export goods were moved for examination. The evidence justified the view that he ought to have exercised greater caution and supervision, including sampling or expert examination, and the disciplinary finding could not be branded perverse.

Conclusion: The finding of guilt was not shown to be perverse.

Issue (ii): whether the disciplinary penalty could be sustained when one of the factors relied upon was an adjudication penalty that was subsequently set aside and the adjudication proceedings were dropped.

Analysis: The disciplinary authority had expressly relied upon the earlier adjudication penalty as one of the circumstances establishing collusive conduct. That penalty was later set aside in appeal and the adjudication proceedings were ultimately dropped. In that situation, the penalty order and the tribunal's affirmance could not stand without fresh consideration of the effect of the subsequent adjudication orders, including the question of grave misconduct and the impact of Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Conclusion: The disciplinary penalty could not be sustained and required reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh decision on penalty after taking into account the later adjudication orders, and the petitioner obtained partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a disciplinary penalty is materially founded on an earlier adjudication penalty that is later set aside and the proceedings are dropped, the disciplinary authority must reconsider the matter afresh before sustaining punishment under pension rules.

---