Charge memo invalid without witness list to prove documents under CCS (CCA) Rule 14(3), violating natural justice principles.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)

In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the memorandum dated 01.02.2023 vide which the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant is also aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not acting on the applicant’s representation dated 08.02.2023 which he preferred on being aggrieved by the impugned memorandum.

2. In the O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“8.1 To quash & set-aside the memorandum dated 1.02.2023 including Article of Charge and imputation of misconduct whereby a departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 has been initiated against the applicant and departmental proceeding in pursuance of memorandum dated 1.02.2023 and further applicant be entitled for all consequential benefits.

8.2 To award exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to applicant. Or/and

Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant”

3. In response to notice, respondents have filed counter reply wherein they have disputed the claim of the applicant and have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.

4. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating his claim and grounds pleaded in support thereof.

5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant has pleaded various grounds in the O.A., however, at this stage, he is restricting his arguments only to the extent that the impugned charge memo is not tenable in the eyes of the law in view of the fact that the same is in violation of provisions of Rules 14(3) and (4) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

7. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the list of witnesses indicates ‘Nil’ witnesses annexed with the impugned Charge Memo which has vitiated the proceedings for violating the provisions of Rule 14(3)(ii)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He further submits that the enquiry initiated vide the impugned Charge Memo and the report submitted pursuant thereto are also vitiated for violation of the provisions of Rule 14(3)(ii)(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, in as much as, the allegations as levelled in Article of Charges and that given in the statement of imputation both are same. For the sake of clarity, the provisions of the Rule 14(3)(ii)(a) & (b) reads as under:-

“(ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain-

(a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant;

(b) a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.”

8. In support of his aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order/judgment dated 11.09.2015 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.8726/2015, titled Union of India vs. Shameem Akhtar (Annexure A20), the common order/judgment dated 11.12.20219 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.4471/2014, titled Union of India & Ors. vs. Ritu Chaudhary & Ors. (Annexure A19) as well as on the order/judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 24.09.2008 in OA No.1441/2008, titled Sh. Shailendra Misra vs. Union of India & Ors. (Annexure A17).

9. It is also observed that this Tribun