Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No. 3682/2016 M.A. No.3248/2016 Reserved on : 06.01.2026 Pronounced on:19.01.2026 on’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath., Member (A)

Shri Surender Kumar S/o Shri Mohar Singh, Aged 51 years, Asstt. Station Controller Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Metro Bhawan 13, Bara Khamba Road New Delhi, R/o H.No. 31, Gali no-4 H Block Kunwar Singh Nagar, Nagloi, New Delhi-41 …..Applicant (Advocate: Ms. Meenu Mainee)

Versus

1. Chief Secretary Govt. Of NCT of Delhi Delhi Secretariat Delhi.

2. Managing Director Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Metro Bhawan 13, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi

3. Director (Ops) Matro Bhawan, 13, Barakhamba Road N.D.

4. Executive Director (Ops) Matro Bhawan 13, Bharakhamba Road N.D.

...Respondents (Advocate: Mr. Kunal Sharma)

O R D E R Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s) :-

“8.1 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned orders.

8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may also be pleased to direct the respondents to refund amount which has been recovered from the applicant and give all other consequential benefits.

8.3 That the cost of these proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of Applicant and against the Respondents.”

2. This is the fourth round of litigation. Earlier, the applicant had approached this Tribunal during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings in O.A. No. 2279/2011, O.A. No. 86/2012, and again in O.A. No. 4099/2013. Before adverting to the orders of the Tribunal in the aforesaid OAs, it would be necessary to briefly state the facts of the case. The applicant is an ex-serviceman and was appointed, after his discharge from the Defence Services, as a Junior Station Controller with the DMRC in the year 2005. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Station Controller (ASC). While working as an Assistant Station Controller, a charge memorandum dated 10.03.2010 was served upon the applicant containing two charges:

Article I: While working as ARI/PD Cell, he failed to perform his duties in taking proper inventory of articles lying inside Shop No.

RHE-G-1 at Rohini East Metro Station.

Article II: While taking inventory of articles lying at Shop No. RHE- G-1 at Rohini East Metro Station, he misappropriated articles lying in the shop for personal benefit.

3. The applicant had earlier challenged the aforesaid order of the Inquiry Officer before this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2279/2011, praying for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on the ground that the same were, according to him, in violation of Rule 25.12 of the DMRC (Discipline and Conduct) Rules. In the said case, this Tribunal issued notice returnable on 28.06.2011 and adjourned the matter to 12.07.2011 and thereafter to 25.08.2011. In the meantime, the respondents cancelled the inquiry proceedings initiated earlier and passed an order dated 03.08.2011 informing the applicant that a de novo inquiry had been ordered by the competent authority in order to grant him a reasonable opportunity to represent his case.

4. The applicant denied the charges and expressed his willingness to face the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer, it appears, was not well-versed with the applicable rules and procedures for holding a departmental inquiry and, at the very outset, began cross-examining the applicant in a question-and-answer format on 09.05.2011, thereby acting as a prosecutor as well. The Inquiry Officer also examined certain witnesses behind the back of the applicant, thus denying him an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed O.A. No. 86/2012, which came to be disposed of by this Tribunal on 24.05.2012 with the following directions:

“We have heard the learned counsel