Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13659
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member, Mr. Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member
Rajesh Kumar Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application
For the Applicant(s): Mr. B. Bhushan
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. N. Sharma
Administrative officers cannot be held liable for misconduct without clear authority and responsibility regarding specific administrative actions.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Quashing of charge-sheet and reinstatement - Applicant, a senior officer, alleged to have failed to withhold pension of proforma respondent - Charges framed deemed unsustainable due to lack of authority and responsibility - Suspension quashed. (Paras 10, 9, 7)
(B) Legal principles regarding disciplinary action - Judicial interference in charge-sheet issuance only in exceptional circumstances including lack of jurisdiction or mala fides - In absence of misconduct, suspension order cannot stand. (Paras 9, 8)
Facts of the case:
Applicant, as Assistant Director, allege charge-sheeted for failure to withhold retirement benefits based on departmental authority resting with higher officials.
Findings of Court:
Charges against the applicant quashed due to lack of evidence of misconduct or proper authority to act unilaterally regarding pension matters.
Issues: Whether the applicant was responsible for withholding retiral benefits amidst higher administrative authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that required authority for vigilance and pension matters rested with senior officers, absolving the applicant from misconduct as per administrative rules.
Result: O.A. succeeds; memorandum and suspension orders quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the administrative officer's authority is central to the determination of disciplinary action regarding pension withholding. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments revolve around the applicant's authority and the procedural compliance in the face of disciplinary actions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. the tribunal emphasized on the distinction of responsibilities as it relates to misconduct and charge issuance. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. final ruling supports the dismissal of charges based on authority and procedural conduct of the applicant. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORDER
Per: Mr. Diwakar Singh, Member (J)
The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985 seeking the following relief(s):
“(a) Quash/set aside the impugned memorandum dated 29th April, 2023 issued by the respondent no.2 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965.
(b) Direction upon the respondents to regularize the suspension period and release of remaining due payment.
(c) Direction upon the respondent no.1 responsibility may be fixed against the respondent no. 2 and 3 and other respondents for their abuse of official position inorder to give the safe passage to the proforma respondent.
(d) Costs (e) Any other or further order as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
2. The facts of the matter, in a narrow compass, are as follows:-
The applicant, a Group ‘A’ officer, was serving as Assistant Director (Official Language) in the Office of the Regional Director (Eastern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Kolkata and also functioning as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. He retired from service on 30.04.2023 after more than thirty-four years of service. It is stated that on 27.09.2022, an office order was issued distributing work among officers, and, according to the applicant, this order placed vigilance and Group ‘A’ establishment matters, including pension files, with the Joint Director, Shri Harihar Sahoo. On 30.11.2022 / 01.12.2022 vigilance clearance was issued by the Ministry in respect of the then Regional Director, Shri D. Bandopadhyay, who is the proforma respondent in the instant O.A., with a direction to obtain fresh clearance fifteen days before his retirement. On 02.12.2022 the Joint Director, Shri Harihar Sahoo, was further designated as the officer responsible for pension-related matters in the Directorate. It is stated that in this backdrop, the applicant forwarded a request for fresh vigilance clearance on 05.01.2023 in the pension file of the said officer. Meanwhile, a charge-sheet dated 30.01.2023 was issued to Shri D. Bandopadhyay, who retired on 31.01.2023. A subsequent vigilance communication dated 02.02.2023 was, according to the applicant, received in his office only on 15.02.2023. The applicant states that he prepared and submitted draft notes and a draft e-mail proposing necessary action but his superior officer declined to approve the same, whereas, the respondents allege that the applicant, as D.D.O. and dealing officer, had prior knowledge of the show-cause notice and charge-sheet but failed to act to withhold the retiral benefits. Thereafter, the Ministry placed the applicant under suspension, vide order dated 21.04.2023 (Annexure A/9), and, on 29.04.2023, issued to him a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 containing two Articles of charge (Annexure A/10). These orders are under challenge in the present Original Application.
3. The following articles of charges have been framed against the applicant vide the chargesheet dated 29.04.2023:-
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I
"That Shri R K Tripathi, Assistant Director (Official Language) while looking after the administrative work of the Office of Regional Director (Eastern Region) has suppressed the fact of initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge sheet against Shri D Bandopadhyay, Ex-RD(ER) and has not brought the same to the knowledge of Account officer In Pay & Accounts Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Kolkata.
By d
