Disciplinary proceedings violating statutory rules led to quashing by the Tribunal, enforcing the need for lawful authority in such proceedings.

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

Learned counsels for the parties submit that the issue involved in both the aforesaid CPs are common and therefore, both CPs can be heard and adjudicated together. 2. In view of the aforesaid, with consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the captioned CPs have been heard together and are being disposed of vide the present common order.

3. It is admitted case of the parties that departmental proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter, referred to as Rules) against the applicant while working as TGT (Maths) vide two different charge memos. Pursuant to one charge memo, inquiry was still going on and pursuant to another charge memo, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner.

3. Aggrieved by the said two charge memos and proceedings/order(s) arising therefrom, the petitioner, herein, approached this Tribunal vide the aforesaid OAs. The aforesaid OAs were finally allowed vide common order dated 01.12.2023. Paragraphs 10 & 11 of such order dated

01.12.2023 read as under:-

“10. Considering what has been elaborately is stated above, we are of the opinion that the proceedings initiated against the applicants have been done in contravention to the statutory rules. It is the Chief Secretary, and only the Chief Secretary, who was the competent Disciplinary Authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the applicants. Since there contravention of the statutory provisions of the rules is stark, we do not deem it necessary to go into the rest of the merits of the case.

11. The OA stands allowed and the impugned orders stand quashed and set aside. As an outcome of these directions, the applicants shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits as would accrue. The Competent Authority amongst the respondents shall ensure that these directions are complied with within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending MA, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. However, since we have not looked into specific charges against the applicants nor into the inquiry report and further not even at the orders passed by the various authorities for the reasons already stated above, the respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps, if required, in accordance with law and relevant rules. But we make it clear that this liberty shall not be available in the case of Udal Singh vs. GNCTD in OA No. 932/2017 on account of the fact that this applicant has since long retired on attaining the age of superannuation.

There shall be no order as to costs.”

4. The said order/judgement of the Tribunal was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of the Delhi by way of W.P. (C) No. 9216/2024 and the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the said Writ Petition vide common order/judgement dated 23.12.2024.

5. Alleging wilful defiance of the directions of the Tribunal, contained in Order dated 01.12.2023, upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order/judgement dated 23.12.2024, the petitioner has filed the captioned CPs.

6. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed compliance affidavit. It is also not in dispute that in compliance of directions of the Tribunal, the respondents restored the petitioner in service inasmuch as the respondents have withdrawn the impugned charge memos and subsequent order(s) arising out of the said charge memos, however, the Competent Authority, i.e., Chief Secretary, GNCTD decided to initiate further inquiry against the petitioner and treated the petitioner under susp