Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9715
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Pratima K Gupta, J, Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, A
R.N. Mangla – Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
R.A./135/2025 in O.A./542/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.N. Mangla
For the Respondents: Not specified
Judicial review does not equate to appellate review; the tribunal ensures fair treatment while respecting the decisions of disciplinary authorities, requiring adherence to statutory procedures.
Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Article 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution - Review of disciplinary proceedings - Procedural lapses noted in penalty order, quashing of initial penalty imposed and fresh proceedings ordered due to non-supply of UPSC views before penalty. (Paras 10, 12)
(B) Judicial review - Distinction between review and appeal: Tribunal's role is to ensure fair treatment, not to substitute decisions of disciplinary authorities; emphasis on adherence to statutory procedures. (Paras 3, 3.1)
Facts of the case:
The review applicant sought to challenge the earlier order quashing a penalty imposed due to procedural lapses and requested reconsideration on merits, which was construed as an attempt for an appeal rather than a review.
Findings of Court:
Lack of procedural compliance by the respondents warranted the dismissal of the prior penalty and necessitated a fresh examination of disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary process adhered to statutory provisions and if the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by acting as an appellate authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal reiterated that it cannot act as an appellate body over the disciplinary decisions but must ensure compliance with the legal frameworks governing such processes.
Result: Review application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding merits and procedural fairness in disciplinary action. (Para 2) |
| 2. discussion on judicial review versus appellate authority. (Para 3) |
| 3. conclusion on merits of the review application. (Para 4) |
By Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
The present Review Application (RA) has been filed by the Review Applicant seeking review of order dated 29.05.2025 in OA No.542/2018. The operative part of the said order is reproduced below:
“10. From the summary of events as analysed above, it is clear that the action of respondents in ordering the penalty dated 6.12.2013 rejecting representation dated 18.12.2017 suffers from the following aberrations pertaining to the statutory provisions contained in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
(i) Before issuing the penalty order dated 6.12.2013, the respondents consulted the UPSC vide their reference dated 9.05.2013. The question arises whether it was mandatory to seek the views of UPSC in such matters. Article 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution of India provides that UPSC must be consulted on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under Government of India. Hence, reference was as per constitutional provisions. It is duty of the UPSC to advice on such matters. But it is not mandatory on the part of the respondents to accept such advice. Where there is difference of opinion, the matter may be referred to DoP&T and the final disposal is at the level of the Prime Minister under the Transaction of Business Rules, and DoP&T OM dated 5.12.2006. Here, the respondents have not sent the copy of UPSC opinion to the applicant before issuing the penalty order dated 6.12.2013.
(ii) The order dated 6.12.2013 was an order by the President of India. Hence, no appeal or review lies against such orders, as per provisions under Rules 22 and 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 respectively. Despite these provisions, the respondents treated the representation dated 28.01.2014 as a Review Petition. Thereafter the competent authority accepted the representation, and the office of respondents treated it as difference of opinion between UPSC and the Ministry. Again, they started consulting UPSC and subsequently DoP&T.
11. In view of the procedural lapses and misinterpretation of the statutory provisions, the respondents have clearly violated the statutory provisions governing up the disciplinary case, after the advice of UPSC.
12. In view of the above, the present OA is disposed of in the following manner:
(i) The order dated 6.12.2013 imposing the penalty and rejection of representation dated 31.08.2015 vide order dated 18.12.2017 are quashed.
(ii) The respondents shall have a fresh look into the disciplinary proceedings from the stage when the disagreement note by the disciplinary authority along with the findings by the IO was communicated to the applicant vide their communication dated 17.01.2013 and take a fresh decision as per law.
(iii) The above exercise mentioned in (ii) above shall be undertaken within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
No order as to cost”
2. The Review Applicant in his RA has prayed for review of the order dated 29.05.2025, stating that the order suffers from the error apparent on the face of record and non- consideration of material legal provision. However, perusal of the RA does not show specific error on the face of record and non-consideration of any material legal provision. By mere assertion of such error and non-consideration will not warrant review of the order passed by the Tribunal.
2.1 In his grounds for review, the Review Applicant has submitted that the observations of the Tribunal at para 11 is not congruous with the observations at para 9.3 and 9.4 of the said order. However, this assertion has not been substantiated as to how the observations in para 11 of the order is not congruous with the observations at para 9.3 and 9.4. Similarly, the Review Applicant has stated that the order dated 30.11.2014 and 18.12.2017 were containi
