Failure to comply with Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules vitiates disciplinary proceedings, violating principles of natural justice.

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Shri M K Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

“(i) To quash the punishment order dated 28.09.1999, appellate order 22.03.2000 and order dated 13.07.2000 of the reviewing authority, passed by the respondent no. 4, 3 and 2 respectively and applicant be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(ii) to grant an further relief / direction order as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.

(iii) to award costs in the favour of the applicant.”

3. A compendium of the facts narrated in the OA is that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned orders by way of which punishment of removal of service has been imposed upon him. The applicant has alleged the impugned orders to be illegal, perverse and vitiated and claims them to have been passed in violation of the prescribed rules. Through the OA, the applicant has contended that he has been wrongly fabricated with multiple charges like misappropriation of funds, unbecoming of government servant and several others. Applicant has also contended that he was subjected to an illegal inquiry which was conducted in utter violation of prescribed provisions. Respondents’ allegation is that the applicant has been involved in a series of offences that label him unbecoming of government servant and subsequent to a proper inquiry, appropriate punishment has been imposed upon him. The inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer in accordance with stipulated rules and provisions to which no infirmity or illegality can be attributed. By way of the OA, the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned orders and a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service along with back wages and all consequential benefits like seniority, etc.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that allegations leveled against the applicant are false and are not proved. Findings arrived at by the inquiry officer are perverse. The prosecution witnesses examined during the inquiry themselves have not stated any fact in support of the allegation leveled against the applicant. The inquiry officer while appreciating the statement of the witness has not gone through the statement of defence witnesses. It was further argued that procedure prescribed for conducting the inquiry has not been adhered to and thus there is violation of principal of natural justice. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant argued that to clarify the fact, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to file the affidavit as to whether delinquent employee has examined himself as witness, if not, then whether he has been interrogated under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 or not. Referring to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on 17.04.2025 on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant further argued that nothing was mentioned in it regarding the examination of the charged official as witness nor anything regarding interrogation under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules. Learned counsel for the applicant further referred to the annexures annexed with the aforesaid supplementary affidavit and argued that respondents have annexed only the defence brief and reply to the charge sheet. No statement recorded during inquiry proceedings of the charge official as witness has been filed nor the interrogation made by the inquiry officer under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been followed. Since mandatory provision provided under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has not been adhered to thus, entire disciplinary proceedings stands vitiated and order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revision autho