Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1174

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative Member
Ravinder Daravath – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.040/00371/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. N. Borah
For the Respondents: Mr. V.K. Batra, SCGSC

In disciplinary proceedings, authorities cannot rely on uncharged extraneous facts; even proved single charge of inadvertent suppression requires assessing misconduct gravity and proportionality before imposing removal, with reasons for choosing major penalty.

Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rules 11, 14, 17; CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3(1)(iii), (vi), (xviii); Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Section 10 - Disciplinary proceedings - Suppression of government employment status in passport application - High Court set aside removal order holding second charge (sexual harassment) settled by conciliation and transfer, permitting reconsideration only on first charge - Disciplinary authority re-imposed removal relying on extraneous new factual allegations not part of original charge - Tribunal held new allegations foreign to charge, requiring fresh inquiry; even assuming guilt on original charge, penalty of removal disproportionate without reasoned consideration of gravity, alternatives, or proportionality - Remanded for fresh decision on misconduct nature and penalty quantum. (Paras 17-42)

(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Misconduct - Mere error, negligence, or inadvertent mistake in declaration does not constitute misconduct unless arising from ill motive or causing serious consequences - Penalty must be proportionate; authority bound to give reasons for choosing major penalty over minor ones, considering all circumstances. (Paras 24-30, 32-39)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, on probation as Assistant Central Intelligence Officer, faced two charges: (1) declaring as private employee in Tatkal passport application despite government service; (2) sexual harassment settled via internal committee conciliation with transfer and probation extension. Removal imposed on both; High Court invalidated second charge as double jeopardy, remanding for penalty decision solely on first charge. Authority re-imposed removal citing new uncharged facts like prior application concealment, foreign travel without intimation, and post-verification non-rectification.

Findings of Court:
Impugned removal and appellate orders quashed; extraneous matters considered; original charge, even if proved, questionable as major misconduct; penalty disproportionate without proportionality analysis or reasons for extreme measure.

Issues: Whether new uncharged allegations could sustain guilt finding; if passport declaration error constitutes misconduct warranting removal; proportionality and reasoned imposition of major penalty post-remand.

Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary authorities cannot rely on extraneous uncharged facts; must assess if alleged act is misconduct (requiring ill motive, not mere negligence); penalty selection demands proportionality, reasons for major over minor penalties, especially post-High Court remand limiting to single charge.

Result: Original Application allowed; matter remanded to disciplinary authority for fresh reasoned consideration within three months.

Table of Content
1. factual background of sexual harassment and passport noc issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. disciplinary proceedings, inquiry, removal, and appellate process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. high court intervention and fresh challenge to orders. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. high court order limiting inquiry to charge i, avoiding double jeopardy. (Para 15 , 16)
5. new extraneous allegations in fresh order beyond original charge i. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. charge i facts: false declaration as private employee. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. misconduct requires ill motive, not mere negligence or error. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. penalty proportionality and reasoned imposition required. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
9. authority must justify selection of specific penalty. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
10. remand for reconsideration of misconduct and proportionality. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)

O R D E R :-

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member

The applicant challenges Annexure A-2 order, by which appeal filed by him challenging Annexure A-1 order of removal from service issued to the 5^th respondent, with effect from 07.12.2020, invoking Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was dismissed.

2. The facts leading to removal of applicant from service can be detailed briefly. He was offered appointment as an Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-I at Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Hyderabad on temporary basis on 11.09.2015 by Annexure A-3. He joined at Hyderabad on 16.02.2016 by Annexure A-5 order. In May, 2016, a complaint was lodged against him by a lady colleague alleging harassment. A committee was constituted under the “Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013”. By Annexure A-6, the committee, after recording the statement of both sides, noted a conciliation between the parties. It recommended that 1) the applicant may be transferred to any other office. 2) His probation may be extended. 3) Any other action as deemed fit and appropriate by the competent authority. Accordingly, by Annexure A-7 dated 10.08.2016, the applicant was transferred to Guwahati, where he joined on 25.08.2016.

3. While so, applicant sought for No Objection Certificate (NOC), by Annexure A-8 application dated 06.07.2017, for applying for Passport under Tatkal. By Annexure A-9 office note dated 07.07.2017, he was informed by CFSL that he had booked/purchased air tickets before sanctioning the leave and without permission. It was also informed that on earlier occasion also similar incident had happened. It seems that no action was taken thereon. However, subsequently, by Annexure A-10 dated 01.08.2017, a fresh application was submitted to the Coordinator, CFSL, Guwahati for granting NOC for obtaining a Passport for himself and his wife under the Tatkal Scheme. By Annexure A-11 dated 07.08.2017, CFSL sought further details. Since NOC was not forthcoming, by Annexure A-12 dated 09.08.2018 reminder was submitted. Ultimately by Annexure A-13 dated 24.08.2017, NOC was sanctioned to him.

4. Much later, on 11.03.2019, Annexure A-14 Office Note was issued by the 5^th respondent informing the applicant that he had submitted false information to the Passport Office that he was serving as a private employee and concealing the fact that he was functioning as an Intelligence Officer under the CFSL. It was alleged that he had thereby violated various provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He was called upon to give his explanation as to why the Conduct shall not be treated as a misconduct and why suitable action shall not be taken. He was also informed that Annexure A-13 NOC was revoked. In the meanwhile, the Regional Passport Officer by Annexure A-15 dated 14.03.2019 required the applicant to surrender the Passport and offered to return after confirmation of the employee type. He gave Annexure A-16 reply stating that since he was not conversant with the process of applying for Passport and he had entrusted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1174

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSunil Thomas, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative MemberRavinder Daravath – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No.040/00371/2023

In disciplinary proceedings, authorities cannot rely on uncharged extraneous facts; even proved single charge of inadvertent suppression requires assessing misconduct gravity and proportionality before imposing removal, with reasons for choosing major penalty.

Cases Referred (5)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member, Sanjiv Kumar, Administrative Member
Ravinder Daravath – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.040/00371/2023