Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9097
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Justice Om Prakash VII, J, Mr. Mohan Pyare, A
Laxmi Kant Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 906 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Abhishek Tripathi, Shri Dharmendra Tiwari
For the Respondents: Shri R.K. Srivastava
The inquiry proceedings must adhere to procedural laws; failure to do so invalidates the findings and penalties imposed.
Headnote:The judgment concerns the quashing of disciplinary orders against a government employee, citing violations of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The court found that the inquiry was conducted unlawfully, denying the applicant critical opportunities for defense and witness examination. The court highlighted non-adherence to principles of natural justice and ordered the quashing of the disciplinary authority's decisions, directing the restoration of the applicant's pay and seniority.
Result: "The order dated 02.03.2015, 05.04.2013 and 11.02.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside."
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant seeks quashing of penalty orders based on procedural violations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. the applicant alleged wrongful framing and inquiry violations. (Para 5) |
| 3. court emphasized the necessity of adherence to procedural rules in inquiries. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. the disciplinary actions taken against a group are cited based on collective involvement. (Para 11) |
| 5. highlighting the invalidity of the inquiry based on failure to provide fair process. (Para 12 , 27) |
| 6. non-compliance with mandatory provisions of inquiry leads to vitiated outcomes. (Para 24 , 26) |
| 7. court ordered restoration of benefits and potential new inquiry. (Para 28) |
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Shri Abhishek Tripathi and Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Shri R K Srivastava, 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 consider for issuing orders or directions, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Appellate Orders of penalty (02.03.2015) (A-1) and the original order dated 05.04.2013 (A-2) and the enquiry report dated 11.2.2013 (A-3)
ii. To consider for issuing orders or directions, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for setting aside the impugned orders of amended penalty (02.03.2015) (A-1) and the original order dated 05.04.2013 (A-2) and the enquiry report dated 11.02.2013 (A-3) and to allow all consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and allowances and promotions.
iii. To consider any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. To award the cost of the application throughout.”
3. A compendium of the facts as have been narrated in the present original application is that the applicant, who is a permanent employee of the respondents’ department, has alleged that he has been wrongly framed by the respondents citing his role in the incident dated 24.02.2012 that took place in the office. The said incident pertained to surprise attendance check by the officials of the department which caused panic among the staff of the office and that unreasonable and arbitrary exercise on the part of the department also caused provoked a general dissent against the concerned DAG and further cause inconvenience to everyone. It has been contended in the OA by the applicant that after a lapse of more than four months, the applicant was falsely implicated in the alleged occurrence took place on 24.02.2012 and subsequently an illegal charge sheet was also issued against the applicant. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer but that too was conducted in absolute violation of the extant rules and provisions as enshrined in the statutes. It has been specifically alleged by the applicant in the OA that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the relevant CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as the applicant was not given reasonable opportunity to defend his case and further, violation of principles of natural justice also took place during the course of the inquiry. It has also been alleged that orders as were passed by the authorities concerned subsequent to the submission of the inquiry report are also illegal and arbitrary. Thus, by way of the instant OA, the applicant seeks quashing of the enquiry report dated 11.02.2013 submitted by the inquiry officer, the order dated 05.04.2013 issued by the Disciplinary Authority and also order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority by way of which the appeal preferred by the applicant was rejected. Subject to quashing of the aforesaid orders, the applicant seeks a direction to the respondents to refix the pay scale of the applicant as he was holding prior to the passing of the impugned orders and also confer all the consequential benefits upon him. Respondents on the other hand have filed counter affidavit rebutting the averments of the applica
