Disciplinary charge-sheet must be issued by authorized officer as per regulations; prior approval insufficient if not signed by Director on behalf of competent authority for Group ‘A’ employees, rendering proceedings void.

Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A):-

By way of the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned penalty order dated 14.9.2016 (A/1), Appellate order dated 25.4.2018 (Annex. A/2), charge sheet dated 15.5.2014, Inquiry Officer report and entire disciplinary proceedings, declaring to the effect that the same are illegal and arbitrary and against the rules and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to re-instate the applicant in service immediately with all the consequential benefits deeming no charge sheet was issued to the applicant along with the arrears of pay and allowances.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.”

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was initially appointed on 17.04.1989 as Security Officer under the respondents’ organization and was subsequently promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Security Officer in AIIMS, New Delhi. A complaint pertaining to irregularities in award and execution of a security services contract culminated in issuance of a major penalty charge-sheet dated NEE1T5U. 05Dig.ita2lly 0sign1ed4 by (Annexure-A/4) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.03.11

14:10:09+05'30'

1965. The substance of the Article of Charge reads as under:-

“ARTICLE OF CHARGE:-

"That the said Shri Rajiv Lochan while working as Deputy Chief Security Officer at the Institute was responsible for fudging of the records in preparing a misleading comparative statement, by distorting/concealing vital facts about technical criteria regarding deployment of minimum number of personnel, financial turnover etc., in tender NO. XX-220/Pvt.Security/08-09/St. for deployment of security services at the Institute, which enabled an Ineligible firm, M/s Prehari Protection Systems Pvt. Ltd to get the tender. Apart from this, he was very much involved right from the beginning in the said process including the framing and publication of EOOI, which though approved by the Director for two bid system, was in total contradiction of provisions of GFR 2005 and directions of Central Vigilance Commission, and was in fact engineered to make M/s Prehari Protection Systems Pvt. Ltd., qualify the said tender. Even after the execution of the said contract, he was involved in massive irregular payment to the contractor without proper verification causing financial loss to the Institute and also leading to strike, resulting in unnecessary litigation and loss of reputation for Institute. Such act of Shri Rajiv Lochan was in blatant violation of rules/guidelines/directions of GFR

2005 and Central Vigilance Commission.

Shri Rajiv Lochan, Dy. Chief Security Officer is thus responsible for gross misconduct, failed to maintain devotion to duty, absolute integrity and has acted in a manner unbecoming of an Institute employee; thereby contravening Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as applicable to the employees of the Institute.”

3. An Inquiry Officer was appointed and he submitted his report on 09.10.2025 (Annexure-A/15). Based on the Inquiry Officer’s Report, the I.O. in his report held the charge as ‘Proved’. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued penalty order dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure-A/1), the punishment of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government and the applicant was removed from service. The penalty order was issued by the Disciplinary Authority/Director, AIIMS.

NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.03.11

Against the Disciplinary