Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2869

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suresh Kumar Batra, Judicial Member, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Administrative Member
Ramesh Kumar Nigah – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.060/382/2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mandeep Singh, Mr. Abhimanyu Rana
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC, Mr. Pankaj Khurana

Disciplinary proceedings quashed after two exonerations on same charges despite CVC advice; show cause notice invalid without supplying dissent and CVC opinion; eligibility reopening barred by delay post long unblemished service sans fraud.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rules 14 & 15 - Disciplinary proceedings - Applicant shortlisted by Scrutiny Committee despite lacking 9 months experience, selected and confirmed after approval by competent authority - Two inquiries by different Inquiry Officers exonerated applicant on same allegations - Despite exonerations, CVC second stage advice recommended major penalty of removal - Fresh charge-sheet issued on Ministry directions, second Inquiry Officer again exonerated - Show cause notice proposing removal issued without supplying dissent note or CVC advice, denying effective representation - Proceedings spanning over 16 years held arbitrary, hit by delay/laches, violative of natural justice - No fraud/misrepresentation proved, no relaxation order needed post-selection by competent authority - Mechanical reliance on advisory CVC opinion without independent application of mind vitiates process - Applicant confirmed after probation, served over 24 years unblemished service till superannuation - Disciplinary authority competent for Group-B posts - Impugned notice quashed as abuse of process after two exonerations, no new material justifying revival. (Paras 23-31)

(B) Principles of natural justice - Show cause notice proposing major penalty must supply Inquiry Officer report, dissent note and relied documents including CVC advice - Denial thereof breaches reasonable opportunity of representation - Supreme Court in ECIL Hyderabad Vs. V. Karunakar mandates copy of inquiry report even if rules silent. (Para 25)

(C) Delay and laches - Reopening eligibility after decades of service, confirmation and unblemished record without proving fraud, amounts to harassment - No action against Scrutiny/Selection Committee despite admitted lapse - Estoppel operates against respondents. (Paras 26, 30)

Facts of the case:
Applicant appointed to Group-B post in 1995 after selection process, confirmed in 1997 - During cadre review, eligibility doubted leading to charge-sheet in 2006 - First Inquiry Officer exonerated in 2007, initially accepted but revived on CVC advice 2009 and Ministry directions 2016 - Second charge-sheet 2016, second exoneration 2018 - Show cause notice 2019 proposing removal without supplying dissent/CVC advice.

Findings of Court:
Impugned show cause notice dated 26.02.2019 proposing removal, CVC advice dated 31.03.2009 and all consequential proceedings quashed - Disciplinary proceedings dropped.

Issues: Whether repeated disciplinary proceedings on same allegations sustainable after two exonerations; validity of show cause notice without supplying dissent note/CVC advice; competence to reopen eligibility after 24 years service; impact of delay/laches and natural justice violations.

Ratio Decidendi: Once selected/confirmed by competent authority without fraud, eligibility cannot be reopened after long unblemished service; two exonerations bind unless new material; CVC advice merely advisory, requires independent satisfaction; non-supply of dissent/CVC advice violates natural justice; prolonged proceedings despite exonerations constitute abuse of process.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's appointment process and qualifications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. disciplinary proceedings and repeated exonerations (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 23)
3. applicant's contentions on delay and natural justice (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. respondents' defense of eligibility and procedure (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. rejection of limitation and prematurity objections (Para 22 , 24 , 25)
6. no eligibility reopening absent fraud or misrepresentation (Para 26 , 27)
7. cvc advice merely advisory, not binding (Para 28)
8. non-supply of dissent note violates natural justice (Para 29)
9. quashing proceedings due to delay, exonerations, and arbitrariness (Para 30 , 31)

O R D E R

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

(i) To quash show cause notice No. F.4065/E1(@)/NFS/PGI/2019 dated 26.02.2019, (Annexure A-1), issued by the respondent No.4, while deciding to impose upon the applicant the major penalty of removal from service under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, being incompetent authority.

(ii) To quash the O.M. dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure A-2) issued by the respondent No.5 and giving his advice on the first inquiry report (Annexure A-12) without considering the reply of applicant.

(iii) To direct the respondents to drop the Disciplinary proceedings pending against the applicant for the last more than 16 years, and both the Inquiry Officers exonerated him.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant belongs to SC category and was initially appointed as Pharmacist under the Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab on 06.09.1988 and continued in that capacity till 12.12.1990. During this period, he acquired the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy in June 1989 from Panjab University. Thereafter, he further enhanced his academic qualifications by obtaining the degree of Master of Pharmacy in February 1993. Subsequently, he was appointed as Lecturer in Indo-Soviet Friendship College of Pharmacy, Moga on 01.09.1992, where he continued to serve prior to his selection to the post in question.

3. The Respondent No.2 issued Advertisement No. 2/94 dated 23.06.1994 (Annexure A-3 colly) inviting applications for the post of Pharmacist (Superintendent Dispensary), which was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. The essential qualifications prescribed were B. Pharmacy with three years‟ experience in manufacturing of injectables or B.Sc. with ten years‟ experience in manufacturing of injectibles. The advertisement also provided that age and experience could be relaxed in exceptional cases on the recommendation of the selection committee. The applicant was holding higher qualification of M.Pharma, but was not having experience in manufacturing of injectibles. He possessed experience of 2 years and 3 months as Pharmacist and 2 years and 3 months as Lecturer in Pharmacy. He applied for the said post through proper channel (Annexure A-4) on the understanding that if the authorities of PGI Chandigarh, in the absence of candidate fulfilling the required experience, decided to grant relaxation in experience as notified in the information sheet, his candidature for the post might be considered by granting the relaxation of experience as prescribed since he was holding higher qualification of M. Pharma against the required qualification of B. Pharma.

4. The applicant‟s application was scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee constituted by the respondents, which found him eligible and shortlisted him for interview. He was thereafter interviewed by the duly constituted Selection Committee, which recommended his name for WADHWA appointment. The recommendation was placed before the President of the Institute, who is the competent appointing authority, and approval was conveyed vide letter dated 23.12.1994 (Annexure A-6). Pursuant thereto, appointment letter dated 20.01.1995 (Annexure A-7) was issued to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2869

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSuresh Kumar Batra, Judicial Member, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Administrative MemberRamesh Kumar Nigah – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No.060/382/2019

Disciplinary proceedings quashed after two exonerations on same charges despite CVC advice; show cause notice invalid without supplying dissent and CVC opinion; eligibility reopening barred by delay post long unblemished service sans fraud.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suresh Kumar Batra, Judicial Member, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Administrative Member
Ramesh Kumar Nigah – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.060/382/2019