2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1979

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, J, Mohan Pyare, A
Girija Shankar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan – Respondent
Original Application No. 1116 of 2017

Failure of an inquiry officer to question a charged officer under Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence, is a mandatory violation that vitiates the inquiry, regardless of independent proof of prejudice.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14(18) - Disciplinary proceedings - Mandatory compliance - Inquiry officer’s duty to question charged officer on incriminating circumstances - Non-compliance vitiates inquiry proceedings. (Paras 16-17)

(B) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14(18) - Necessity of questioning - Provision is substantive and mandatory, not merely procedural - Failure to follow nullifies inquiry unless waived. (Paras 16-17)

(C) Principles of natural justice - Prejudice - When a mandatory provision like Rule 14(18) is violated, prejudice is presumed; charged officer need not independently prove prejudice. (Para 16)

(D) Service law - Disciplinary inquiry - Supply of documents - Non-supply of authenticated documents, if no prejudice shown, does not automatically vitiate proceedings. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a teacher, was charged with manipulating answer sheets of his son to provide undue benefits. A disciplinary inquiry was held, and he was punished with reduction of pay. His appeal was rejected. In the Original Application, he challenged the inquiry report, disciplinary authority order, and appellate authority order on multiple grounds, including violation of Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as the inquiry officer failed to question him on incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is a mandatory, substantive provision. The inquiry officer’s failure to question the applicant on incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence, despite the applicant raising this issue at the appellate stage, vitiated the entire inquiry. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prabhakar Hegde, the Tribunal found that non-compliance caused prejudice to the applicant, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove the charges. The impugned orders were quashed.

Issues: The main issues were whether non-compliance of Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is mandatory and whether such non-compliance, in the absence of proof of prejudice, vitiates the disciplinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal held that Rule 14(18) is a mandatory, substantive provision. Its violation, when raised at an appropriate stage and not waived, renders the inquiry proceedings illegal, as it deprives the charged officer of a fair opportunity to explain adverse evidence, and prejudice need not be independently proved.

Result: Original Application allowed. Impugned orders quashed. Respondents directed to grant all consequential benefits within three months. Respondents may initiate inquiry afresh from the stage of granting opportunity under Rule 14(18). Parties: The applicant was a teacher; the respondents were the employer (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan). No dissenting opinions included. Case Laws Applied: Biecco Lawrie Ltd. v. State of West Bengal; K.K.S. Sirohi v. Union of India; Atul Kumar Sinha v. Board of Directors, UPSRTC; Pramod Kumar v. General Manager, NE Railway; Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath; K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda; Tirlok Nath v. Union of India; State Bank of India v. S.K. Sharma. Also Cited: Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India; Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar; S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan. Additional Observations: The Tribunal noted that the advice of the administrative officer, if relied upon, must be disclosed to the charged officer. Evidence from preliminary inquiry not supplied or proved cannot be relied upon. Statutes/Acts: Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.