Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 681

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R. N. Singh, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
R. K. Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 32/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. K. Gupta
For the Respondents: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar

Final charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings against Group A officers requires specific approval by competent authority; inordinate unexplained delay vitiates inquiry; 100% pension/gratuity withholding disproportionate absent pecuniary loss.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 9 - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Disciplinary proceedings against Group A officer - Competence of Minister of State - Approval for initiation by Minister of State competent under Article 77(3) read with Allocation of Business Rules and Transaction of Business Rules - However, final charge memorandum with imputations, witnesses, documents must be approved by competent authority - Approval only by Additional Secretary renders proceedings void ab initio - Inordinate unexplained delay beyond 6 months/1 year vitiates inquiry - Penalty of 100% withholding of pension and gratuity shockingly disproportionate absent pecuniary loss and with mixed inquiry findings. (Paras 13(i), 16, 17, 22, 25)

(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Time limits - Inquiry report submitted after 1 year 4 months without extension or reasons - Violation of DoP&T OMs, CVC circulars, amended CCS (CCA) Rules mandating 6 months completion - Prolonged proceedings (over 5 years 8 months) post superannuation cause grave prejudice - Supreme Court directive for conclusion within 6 months, extendable to 1 year maximum for unavoidable causes. (Paras 18-22)

(C) Penalty - Proportionality - Withholding 100% pension and gratuity extreme, only for grave misconduct causing serious loss - Not sustainable for partly proved charges without pecuniary damage after 30+ years service - Disciplinary Authority must independently assess 'grave misconduct' under Pension Rules, not mechanically accept UPSC advice. (Paras 23-25)

Facts of the case:
Retired Additional Superintendent of Police challenged disciplinary proceedings initiated post CVC advice alleging misconduct in investigation including bribe demand and false implication - Charge memo issued after partial approval by Minister of State but finalized by Additional Secretary - Inquiry delayed beyond timelines, some charges proved/partly proved - Post-retirement penalty of 100% withholding of pension and gratuity imposed.

Findings of Court:
Charge memorandum invalid due to lack of competent authority approval for complete draft; proceedings vitiated by inordinate delay without justification; penalty shockingly disproportionate - All impugned orders quashed; full pension, gratuity with interest directed.

Issues: (i) Competence of Minister of State to approve charge memorandum; (ii) Validity of inquiry due to delay beyond 6 months without extension; (iii) Sustainability and proportionality of pension/gratuity withholding penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: While Minister of State acts as limb of government without sub-delegation, final charge sheet approval mandatory from competent authority per Supreme Court precedents - Unexplained delay fatal; harshest penalties require grave misconduct with loss, balanced against service length and inquiry findings.

Result: O.A. allowed - Impugned CVC advice, charge memo, inquiry report, UPSC advice, punishment order quashed; full retiral benefits with GPF interest within 4 weeks.

Table of Content
1. factual timeline of applicant's career and disciplinary proceedings (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant's challenges to competent authority and procedural irregularities (Para 3 , 5 , 6)
3. respondents' defense of competent authority and procedure compliance (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. mos competent but charge memo approval defective, voiding proceedings (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. inordinate unexplained delay vitiates disciplinary inquiry (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
6. penalty shockingly disproportionate absent pecuniary loss (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
7. quash proceedings, restore pension and gratuity (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -

1.By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant, in Para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“8.1. To quash and set aside, first stage advice of the Central Vigilance Commission dated 11.10.2013.

8.2. To quash and set aside, the memorandum of charge bearing No. F No. 221/06/2011 AVD-II(B) dated 04.08.2015.

8.3. To quash and set aside orders No. F No. 221/06/2011 AVD-II(B) dated 10.01.2017.

8.4. To quash and set aside the report of Inquiring Authority dated 01.06.2018.

8.5. To quash and set aside, Union Public Service Commission‟s advice dated 17.11.2020.

8.6. To quash and set aside punishment order bearing No. F No. 221/06/2011 AVD-II(B) dated 06.04.2021.

8.7. To quash and set aside order bearing No. DP/RDA Cell-2021/1588/53/01/2011 dated 24.11.2021.

8.8. To award cost.

8.9. Any other relief(s) which the Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. As stated by the applicant, he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI on 01.07.1983. Thereafter, he was promoted as Inspector of Police, CBI on 16.08.1988 as also to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI on 28.04.2003.

2.1 The applicant was further promoted to the post of Additional Superintendent (Grade ‗A‘/Gazetted) in the Pay Band-3 (Rs. 15600-39100/-) + Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- along with other colleagues in pursuance to letter of DoP&T dated 11.01.2010 vide Office Order dated 20.01.2010 (Annexure-A/9), i.e., with the approval of the Hon‘ble Prime Minister as Minister-in-Charge of DoP&T.

2.2 On 11.10.2013 (Annexure-A/2), Central Vigilance Commission (in short 'CVC') had advised for initiation of RDA for major penalty against the applicant. The Hon‘ble Prime Minister as Minister-in-Charge of DoP&T had delegated his power of making appointment and promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police including some other post to the Hon‘ble Minister of State in Prime Minister‘s office vide order dated 06.01.2015 (Annexure-A/10).

2.2 Memorandum of charge dated 04.08.2015 (Annexure- A/3) under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for initiating Major Penalty) was served on the applicant on 12.08.2015. The applicant was directed to submit a written statement of defence within ten days of receipt of memorandum and also to state whether the applicant deserves to be heard in person. On 18.09.2015, the applicant had submitted his written statement of defense. On 10.01.2017 (Annexure-A/5), Sh. Anurag, Superintendent of Police, CBI, SC-I, New Delhi was appointed as Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant. On the same date, vide another order, Sh. A. K. Pandey, Additional Superintendent of Police, CBI, SC-II, New Delhi was appointed as Presenting Officer to present the case in support of the charges against the applicant before Inquiring Authority.

2.3 Inquiring Authority submitted its report dated 01.06.2018 whereby the IA had held Article of Charge No. 1- as partly proved; Article of Charge No. II-as Not proved; Article of Charge No. III- as Proved; Article of Charge no. IV- as Partly proved; Article of Charge No. V- as Proved and Article of Charge No. VI-as Not proved.

2.4 After considering the Inquiry Report dated 01.06.2018

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 681

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALR. N. Singh, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative MemberR. K. Agrawal – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A. No. 32/2022

Final charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings against Group A officers requires specific approval by competent authority; inordinate unexplained delay vitiates inquiry; 100% pension/gratuity withholding disproportionate absent pecuniary loss.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R. N. Singh, Judicial Member, Rajinder Kashyap, Administrative Member
R. K. Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 32/2022