Disciplinary proceedings must comply with natural justice principles, including witness examination to establish charges.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

1. Learned counsels for the parties, at the outset, submit that the issue involved in both the O.As. bearing Nos. 2998/2025 and 3000/2025 are identical and therefore, the same can be heard together and disposed of by way of a common order.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the issue involved in the present O.A. is squarely covered by an order/judgment of the Tribunal dated 30.05.2025 passed in O.A. No. 1214/2025 (Annexure A7) titled Rajiv Sinha Versus Prasar Bharti and Others.

3. Despite several opportunities accorded to the respondents, no counter reply has been filed.

4. Ms. Vertika Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the order/judgment dated 30.05.2025 in Rajiv Sinha (Supra). She submits that the present O.A. may also be disposed of in the same light as in the case of Rajiv Sinha (Supra).

5. For the convenience of writing the order, O.A. No. 2998/2025 is taken as lead case and the facts are being taken from the same.

6. By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-

“8.1 Quash and set aside Respondent No. I's office memorandum F. No. C-13011/01/2024-Vig/460 dated 23.12.2024 vide which the Respondent No. 1 has commenced disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant to punish the Applicant with major penalty.

8.2 Pass an order declaring that the disciplinary proceedings commenced vide office memorandum F. No. C-13011/01/2024-Vig/460 dated 23.12.2024 is illegal and contrary to principles of natural justice.

8.3 Any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Applicants and against the Respondent.”

7. It is undisputed that by way of the impugned memorandum dated 23.12.2024, the respondents have proposed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (herein referred to as Rules).

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that while issuing/serving the impugned memorandum under Rule 14 of the Rules in terms of the provisions of Rule 14(3)(ii)(b) and (14)(4)(a) it is mandatorily required to supply a copy of list of witnesses along with the said memorandum. However, in the present case, admittedly, no list of witnesses has been annexed and served upon the applicant along with the impugned memorandum. He submits that such issue came before this Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1214/2025 titled Rajiv Sinha Versus Prasar Bharti and Others and the Tribunal while placing reliance upon various judgments and case laws has allowed the O.A. vide order/judgment dated 30.05.2025. For clarity, paras 10.2 to 14 of the said order/judgment is reproduced below :-

“10.2. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has also reiterated such position of law in (i) order/judgment dated 01.07.2019 in WP(C) No. 898/2006 titled R.K. Shivdasani v. UOI & Anr. (pl. see paragraph 27) and (ii) order/judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP(C) Nos. 39989 and 38696 of 2016 titled Promod Kumar, IPS vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (pl. see paragraph 57)

11. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Priyadarshani (supra) has passed a detailed order taking into consideration catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and in paragraphs 14 to 21, it has observed as under:

“14. In light of Regulation 6(3), the inevitable conclusion is that the IO has followed the procedure prescribed therein more in breach than in compliance. The Supreme Court has time and again held that where no oral evidence is led to prove the documents relied upon by the prosecution, documents cannot be taken into consideration to conclude that the charges are