A Division Bench comprising Justices Sujata V Manohar and S Rajendra Babu in their 12-page recent order said, ``No legitimate reason has been found for the officer, B Dev, absenting himself or refusing to join duty at Delhi.''

The Bench said it was also found that the conduct was premeditated and Dev had already purchased a house at London at the beginning of his tenure indicating that he had no intention at any time of returning to Delhi.

``Looking to the facts of the present case, the charge of grave misconduct has been correctly proved, therefore, the order permanently withholding the full pensionary benefits to Dev cannot be faulted,'' the Bench said and set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruling in Dev'sfavour.

The Court also upheld the order of the President rejecting the revision petition of Dev and dismissed his original writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which was subsequently transferred to CAT.

Dev, who was holding the post of Assistant Director Grade-I in the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, was sent on deputation to MEA as Director (Shipping) and was posted at the Indian High Commission in London from July 18, 1975, for a period of three years.

On expiry of his deputation, he was informed on October 24, 1978, to make preparations for his departure to New Delhi, where he was being transferred with immediate effect.

He represented against the transfer. MEA rejected it and asked him to relinquish charge by December 15, 1978, but Dev gave various excuses including his and his wife's illness for not handing over the charge.

Later, he proceeded on medical leave without handing over charge. He was relieved of his duties from the High Commission with effect from December 7, 1978,but he neither returned to Delhi nor did he join duty.

An inquiry instituted by the Government found that Dev had used his tenure at the High Commission for enabling him to settle in England and had purchased a house in London almost at the beginning of his stint at the foreign office. The inquiry committee recommended exemplary punishment for him.

The Apex Court rejected Dev's contention that his pension could not have been stopped even when it was established under Section Nine of Central Civil Services rules unless pecuniary loss was caused to the Government by his action.