Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 582
Item No.05 (C-1) O.A. No. 4333/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No.4333/2024
Reserved on: 19.02.2025
Pronounced on: 27.02.2025
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Shri Bhavesh Gupta,
S/o Lalta Prasad Gupta,
R/o D-1/63, Gold Croft Society,
Plot No.4, Dwarka, Sector 11,
New Delhi-110075.
…Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. V. K. Garg, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr.
Sagar Saxena, Mr. Parmeet Singh, Mr. K. S. Rakhi & Mr.
Sharthak Pandey)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief,
Military Engineer Services,
Integrated HQ of MoD (Army)
Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg,
New Delhi-110011.
3. The Director General (Personnel)
Military Engineer Services,
II IQ of Ministry of Defence,
Kashmir House, New Delhi-110011.
4. The Managing Director,
2
Item No.05 (C-1) O.A. No. 4333/2024
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development
Corp. Ltd.,
74 (A), 1st Floor, MCD Property Tax Building,
Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi.
…Respondents
(By Advocate:Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
Mr. V. K. Garg, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Sagar Saxena, Mr. Parmeet Singh, Mr. K. S. Rakhi & Mr. Sharthak Pandey, Mr. Gyanendra Singh
The borrowing department lacks authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee post-repatriation, rendering any charge memorandum issued without proper approval invalid.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - CCS CCA Rules - Rule 14 - Disciplinary proceedings - Applicant challenged the validity of the charge memorandum issued post-repatriation, asserting lack of authority by the borrowing department to initiate proceedings - Court found that the charge memorandum was fundamentally defective due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, specifically independent approval from the disciplinary authority at both stages of inquiry initiation and charge preparation. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 20, 22)
(B) Disciplinary Authority - The borrowing department loses authority to initiate disciplinary action once the employee is repatriated to the parent department, as established in the case law cited. (Paras 6, 14, 20)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a government employee, was repatriated to his parent department after a period of deputation. Following this, a show cause notice and charge memorandum were issued by the borrowing department, which the applicant contested as invalid.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the charge memorandum and departmental inquiry due to procedural defects and lack of authority by the borrowing department.
Issues: The main issues included the authority of the borrowing department to issue a charge memorandum after the applicant's repatriation and the procedural compliance required under CCS CCA Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the charge memorandum was invalid as it lacked the necessary independent approval from the disciplinary authority, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in disciplinary matters.
Result: The impugned charge memorandum dated 01.06.2021 is quashed and set aside.
ORDER
Per: Justice Ranjit More, Chairman:
Since the pleadings are complete and learned counsels for the respective parties agreed to disposal of the present OA at the admission stage itself, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties extensively and are disposing of this OA by passing the following order:
2. By filing the present Original Application (OA), under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):
“i. Set aside/quash impugned show cause memorandum dated 14.05.2019 and impugned charge memorandum dated 01.06.2021 along with articles of charges;
ii. Set aside/quash the impugned departmental inquiry emanating from the impugned memorandums dated 14.05.2019 and 01.06.2021;
iii. Direct the respondents to grant applicant all consequential benefits including but not limited to consideration for promotion to next high post;
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE:
iv. Direct the respondents to take a decision in the disciplinary proceedings/departmental enquiry in time bound manner preferably within 4 weeks from the date of passing of orders by this Hon’ble Tribunal;
v. Pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present OA, are as follows:
3.1. The applicant joined Military Engineer Services (MES)on 16.07.1990 on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, as ‘A’ Civilian Officer and is currently working as a Superintendent Engineer (SE) (QS&C) at E-in-C Branch, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi. On 09.04.2015, while posted as SE under the Chief Engineer, Bhopal Zone, he appeared in an interview held on 09.04.2015 at Delhi for the post of Chief Engineer on deputation basis at Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC) in New Delhi. Subsequently, he was offered an appointment to the post of Chief Engineer at DSIIDC, i.e., respondent no. 4 on deputation basis initially for a period of one year vide offer letter dated 24.08.2015, and on 09.11.2015, he joined the said post on deputation basis. However, on 01.04.2019, he was repatriated to his parent department, and subsequently, a show cause notice dated 14.05.2019 was issued by respondent no.4 calling upon him to explain the reasons for serious lapses alleged on his part. Being aggrieved, the applicant submitted his preliminary reply/objection on 01.01.2020. Consequently, he approached the Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal by filing the O.A. No.249/2020, and the Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal, by way of an interim measure, directed that the impugned show cause notice dated 14.05.2019 shall not stand as a barrier in considering the case of the applicant for his next promotion.
3.2. Thereafter, respondent no.4 sought First Stage Advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) vide its communication dated 10.12.2020, which was given by the CVC to respondent no.4 on 14.01.2021, pursuant to which respondent no.1 issued the memorandum dated 01.06.2021 along with the statement of articles of charge framed against the applicant and the statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the said articles of charge.
3.3. On 02.02.2023, O.A. No.249/2020 came to be disposed of by the Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal, apparently on the ground that in pursuance of the show cause notice, respondents have issued the memorandum of articles of charge dated 01.06.2021. However, till date, no order has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority (DA), and even the departmental proceedings have not been concluded. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
4. Mr. V. K. Garg, learned senior counsel for the applicant, referred to Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules , which prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. He argued that sub-clauses (2) and (3) of the said rule mandates ind
