SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3560

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Krishna, Member (A), Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Krishna Vithal Desai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 521/2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri V.A. Nagrani
For the Respondents: Mrs. N V Masurkar

Unexplained inordinate delay in issuing disciplinary chargesheet near retirement, causing prejudice via withheld retiral benefits, warrants quashing despite employee's interim promotions.

Headnote:(A) Railway Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 9 - Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 - Rule 3.1 (i), (ii), (iii) - Disciplinary proceedings - Chargesheet issued 5 days prior to superannuation based on anonymous complaint from 2013 - Inordinate unexplained delay of over 4 years from complaint to chargesheet and 2 years from vigilance inquiry - No cogent explanation provided by department despite procedural steps claimed - Applicant received promotions during interim period but suffered prejudice due to withholding of retiral benefits - Chargesheet quashed on ground of delay causing prejudice, following precedents where unexplained delay vitiates proceedings. (Paras 25-40)

(B) Delay in disciplinary action - No straightjacket formula for quashing on delay alone - Department must provide bona fide explanation - Employee must demonstrate prejudice - Issuance near retirement clouds post-retiral benefits, constituting prejudice even if promotions obtained - Promotions earned on merit do not negate prejudice from delayed action. (Paras 35-39)

Facts of the case:
Retired railway officer challenged chargesheet issued under Rule 9 of RS(D&A) Rules, 1968, alleging failure to recover license fees from advertising contractors (over Rs.1.74 crores) during 2008-2012 tenure. Anonymous complaint received 2013; vigilance clarification sought 2015; chargesheet issued 23.09.2017, 5 days before superannuation on 30.09.2017, withholding retiral dues. Applicant claimed unblemished 39-year service, malafide delay; department defended procedural diligence, no prejudice as promotions granted 2012 & 2017.

Findings of Court:
Impugned chargesheet dated 23.09.2017 quashed due to inordinate unexplained delay; no documents or dates justifying timeline despite High Court remand on delay issue; prejudice evident from withheld retiral benefits.

Issues: Whether chargesheet liable to be quashed solely on ground of inordinate delay; whether department provided cogent explanation for delay; whether promotions negated prejudice to employee.

Ratio Decidendi: Unexplained inordinate delay in issuing chargesheet, especially near retirement, causes prejudice by jeopardizing retiral benefits; department's failure to furnish specific timeline or documents vitiates proceedings despite procedural assertions; promotions do not benefit employee in delay context if earned meritoriously.

Result: Original Application allowed; chargesheet quashed. No order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. applicant's service history and delayed chargesheet issuance (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents defend against delay; no prejudice to applicant (Para 3)
3. applicant's arguments on delay causing prejudice (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. respondents' counterarguments and case law on delay (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. high court directions and factual timeline of delay (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. supreme court precedents on quashing delayed chargesheets (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
7. prejudice from delay outweighs promotions; chargesheet quashed (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
8. oa allowed; chargesheet quashed (Para 41)

ORDER

Per: Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:

a) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for entire record and papers of the case of the Applicant.

b) This Hon'ble Tribunal after verification of entire records and papers of the case & in the light of facts and grounds stated above be pleased to hold and declare that impugned Chargesheet dated 23-9-2017 is false, baseless, incorrect and arbitrary and further be pleased to quash and set aside the same.

c) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the applicant is innocent and exonerated from all the imputation of misconducts (1 to 9) and Article of Charges leveled/alleged against him and further be pleased to direct the respondent not to take any action on the basis of similar facts and subject matter of the Chargesheet dated 23-9-2017 in future.

d) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent to grant/release all service benefits after retirement monitory or any other service benefits due to the applicant along with interest @ 18% PA from the date the was due till its realization.

e) Pending the present OA and final decision interim relief in terms of prayer clause 9 stated below be granted.

f) Be pleased to impose heavy cost of this original Application on the Respondents and the same may be awarded in favour of the Applicant.

g) Any other relief.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the applicant joined in the service with Western Railway on 21.05.1978, on the post of Gangman. He worked as a Gangman upto August, 1984.

2.1. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted on various other posts in the Railway Administration and was superannuated on 30.09.2017 while working on the post of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager (FM).

2.2. It is stated that his entire service record was absolutely unblemished, clean and without any stigma while performing his duties and responsibilities on various posts for the last 39 years, 4 months and 10 days of entire service in the Western Railway Administration.

2.3. It is submitted that one anonymous complaint no. 2013/10/074/C was filed in the year 2013, alleging defaults in making payment of license fees by few contractors in respect of contract of display of Advertisement hoardings in the Railway’s property.

2.4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the HQ Office at Churchgate, under the signature of Dy. CVO issued a letter no. E/161/2013/01/074/C dated 05.05.2015 to the applicant thereby called upon him to attend the Vigilance Office - at Churchgate on 11.05.2015 at 11 AM for giving explanation/clarification as a part of investigation process on the said anonymous complaint.

2.5. It is submitted that in response to the aforesaid Letter dated 05.05.2015, the applicant attended the office of the Vigilance at Churchgate and replied to the Questionnaire. However, thereafter, no any action of any nature has been initiated against the applicant in respect of the allegations made in the said anonymous complaint and investigation conducted in respect thereof till 24.09.2017.

2.6. The applicant states that in spite of above due to some disgruntled and fraudulent subordinate and higher officers i.e. respondent no. 3 to 6 who are having a personal grudge, jealousy about

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top