S.C. Agrawal and; G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
1. Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 3665 of 1994.
2. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 19-2-1992 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in OA No. 113 of 1986.
3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows.
4. H.S. Arora [appellant in CA No. ... of 1996, arising out of SLP (C) No. 3665 of 1994 and respondent in CA No. 1808 of 1993] was employed as Stenographer Grade ‘C’ in the office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. He had been sent on deputation to the High Commission of India, London for a period of three years. After completion of the said period he was relieved of his duties in the High Commission on 3-12-1981. On compassionate grounds he was granted ex-India leave up to 19-7-1982 on the ground of the education of his children. Since he failed to report for duty in India after the expiry of the said period of leave disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and after holding an enquiry into the charge of misconduct he was dismissed from service by order dated 31-10-1985. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of dismissal he moved the Tribunal by filing OA No. 1186 of 1986. In the said petition H.S. Arora assailed the order of dismissal on the ground that he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself before the Inquiry Officer as well as on the ground that the report of the Inquiry Officer was not furnished to him. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal did not accept the submissions urged by Arora in respect of denial of opportunity before the Inquiry Officer but accepted his contention that the order of dismissal was vitiated on account of non-supply of the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer, in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan1. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the petition filed by Arora and quashed the order of dismissal dated 31-10-1985.
5. CA No. 1808 of 1993 filed by the Union of India must succeed in view of the decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar2 wherein it is laid down that the orders that were passed prior to 20-11-1990, the date of the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan1, would not be open to challenge on the ground of non-supply of the report of the Inquiry Officer. In the present case, the order of dismissal was passed on 31-10-1985. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal quashing the order dated 31-10-1985 cannot, therefore, be upheld.
6. Coming to the appeal filed by Arora we find no merit in the grievance of Arora regarding denial of reasonable opportunity in the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the misconduct that has been found established against him we are of the opinion that the penalty of dismissal of service imposed on Arora may be substituted by the penalty of compulsory retirement from service.
7. We, therefore, dispose of both these appeals with the direction that in place of the penalty of dismissal from service, the penalty of compulsory retirement from service is imposed on Arora and he would stand compulsorily retired from service with effect from 31-10-1985. The period from 19-7-1982 to 31-10-1985 would be treated as a part of the service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits but he would not be entitled to claim any arrears of salary for the said period. The authority concerned shall compute the amount of arrears of pension and other benefits payable to Arora in pursuance of this order and pay the same to him within a period of six months.