Mandatory violation of Rule 15(2) CCS (CCA) Rules by not serving Disciplinary Authority's tentative disagreement note with favourable inquiry report vitiates proceedings without needing prejudice test, ensuring natural justice hearing before differing from exoneration.

ORDER

By Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)):-

This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs

“(a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.01/2019, dated 30.07.2019, passed by Sri Rajeev Tandon, Principal Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Lucknow Zone Lucknow/Appellate Authority, as also the impugned Order-in-Original dated 29/30.04.2019, passed by the Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Lucknow/Disciplianary Authority (Annexure Nos. A-1 and A-2 to Compilation No.1), with all consequential benefits in favour of the applicant.

(b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to grant such other relief, as the applicant might be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to award the costs of this Original Application in favour of the applicant, throughout"

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that the applicant was served with a Charge Memorandum dated 11.07.2016 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging mishandling of an investigation file during his posting as Inspector in the Anti- Evasion Branch, Allahabad (2010–2011), resulting in a time-barred demand of Service Tax. After a full-fledged inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, vide report dated 26.04.2017, categorically held the charge as “not proved”. The said report was supplied to the applicant without any note of disagreement from the Disciplinary Authority, indicating concurrence. Having no grievance, the applicant sought exoneration. However, subsequently, on receipt of the Second Stage Advice of the CVC dated 18.09.2018 recommending imposition of a major penalty, and without recording any prior disagreement with the Inquiry Officer as mandated under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the Disciplinary Authority issued the CVC advice to the applicant, considered his representation, and passed the impugned order dated 29/30.04.2019 imposing a major penalty of reduction of pay. The applicant’s statutory appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.07.2019 without addressing the grounds raised. The applicant contends that the disciplinary proceedings, particularly the post- inquiry stage, suffer from lack of independent application of mind, violation of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, and undue reliance on the CVC advice, thereby rendering the impugned disciplinary and appellate orders illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable, warranting their quashing with all consequential benefits. Hence, this Original Application.

3. On the other hand, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that there was no illegality or procedural impropriety in the disciplinary proceedings. It is asserted that forwarding of the Inquiry Report dated 26.04.2017 to the applicant without a disagreement note did not amount to concurrence, as at that stage the Disciplinary Authority was only required to form a tentative opinion and remained fully competent to take an independent and final decision after considering all facts, evidence, and subsequent developments. It is submitted that since the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not in consonance with the first stage advice of the CVC, consultation with the CVC for second stage advice was mandatory, and the adverse second stage advice was duly communicated to the applicant, affording him full opportunity to submit a repre