Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to legal standards of natural justice, including the provision of witness lists; failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid.

O R D E R Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

By way of the present Original Application (OA) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned penalty order dated 06.11.2023 (Annex. A/1), Charge Sheet dated 29.06.2018, (Annex. A/2) IO report dated 18.03.2020 and entire disciplinary proceedings, declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to restore the pay of the applicant with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances and retrospective promotion from AAO to Accounts Officer from the date his Junior were promoted as AO.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

2. In response to notice, counter reply on behalf of respondents has been filed. By way of the said counter, the respondents have disputed the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated his claim.

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

4. Brief facts as submitted by the applicant are that while working as Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), vide a memorandum dated 22.03.2016, a minor penalty charge sheet under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to him. The applicant submitted his reply to the above memorandum on 02.04.2016 denying the charges. It is the submission of the applicant that another memorandum dated 29.06.2018 was issued to him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, without deciding the earlier charge sheet and the same is impermissible in law. The applicant submitted reply on 24.07.2018 followed by another representation dated 17.10.2018. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.03.2020 which was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 25.01.2023. To the said report of the Inquiry Officer, the applicant submitted his reply on 25.02.2023. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 06.11.2023 imposed a penalty of “reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year” under Rule 11(v) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Thus, the present OA has been filed by the applicant on the grounds that the principles of natural justice have not been followed, the disciplinary authority’s order is not a reasoned and speaking one and that the same has been passed on behalf of the President of India and as per Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the presidential order should be passed only after taking the advice of the UPSC.

5. The applicant, in support of his claim has pleaded various grounds, however, at this stage Sh. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant restricts his argument only to the extent that the impugned proceedings have been initiated in utter violation of the provisions of Rule 14(3) and (4) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 inasmuch as articles of charge vide Annexure A-1 were served upon the applicant, however, by way of Annexure-IV thereto, the witnesses by which such articles of charge framed against the applicant were proposed to be proved are “Nil”. In support of such arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on (i) judgment dated 11.09.2015 of a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C)