This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad the tribunal dated July 18, 1990 upholding the order of the president of India under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972 the Pension Rules withholding the entire monthly pension admissible to the appellant and also denying the death cum retirement gratuity to which the appellant may be entitled under the rules.
In the night between October 20/21, 1973, 70 gms of illicit opium was recovered from Sita Ram Yadava who at that time stated that he was the son of Bhagwati Prasad.
Since the case of the appellant before the disciplinary authority was that Sita Ram Yadava who was companyvicted under the Opium Act was a different person than the appellant, the appellate authority further directed that the disciplinary authority should properly investigate into the identity of the petitioner companyvict and thereafter pass final order in the matter.
This Court, while granting special leave, passed the following order Special leave granted.
Accordingly, a show cause numberice dated August 23, 1985 was issued to the appellant and he submitted his reply.
Criminal Revision filed by Yadava was dismissed by the Jabalpur Bench of the Madha Pradesh High Court on February 28, 1975.
He was absent from duty from October 11, 1973 to July 30, 1974.
The appellant preferred appeal against the order dated June 11, 1984 and once again the appellate authority allowed the appeal and directed the disciplinary authority to give further hearing to the appellant.
The disciplinary authority as a result of the inquiry passed the order dated June 11, 1984 dismissing the appellant from service.
According to the respondents the arrested person was numbere other than the appellant who according to the railway record is son of Jhullan Prasad.
The Union public Service Commission was companysulted which approved the proposed punishment.
The President proposed the provisional punishment of withholding the petitioners pension permanently and number disbursing death cum retirement gratuity to him.
Finally the President passed the order of punishment on May 5, 1987.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant and as a companysequence he was dismissed from service by the order dated December 21, 1974 under Rule 19 i of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 the Rules .
Before the departmental inquiry companyld be companypleted, the appellant retired from service on March 31, 1985.
The appellant preferred appeal which was allowed with a direction to the disciplinary authority to hold an inquiry under Rule 19 of the Rules.
Appeal filed by him was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.
The appellant, Sita Ram Yadava, was working as a Sorter in the Railway Mail Service at Kanpur.
The proceedings were forwarded to the President of India for final orders.
It was also directed that opportunity to cross examine the hand writing expert should also be given.
The disciplinary authority finally recorded the finding that it was the appellant who was companyvicted under the Opium Act.
The inquiry was, thereafter, companyverted into one under the Pension Rules.
We agree with the reasoning and the companyclusions reached by the Tribunal.
