Where departmental and criminal proceedings are based on identical facts and common witnesses, the tribunal may stagger the examination of witnesses in departmental proceedings—allowing witnesses already examined in the criminal trial to be examined while deferring others—to prevent prejudice to the delinquent officer's defense in the criminal trial.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The present Original Application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“a) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 as illegal and arbitrary;

b) To quash the charge-sheet dated 16.03.2023 as being premature and unsustainable in law;

c) To direct the respondents to examine common witnesses first before the criminal court and only thereafter in the departmental proceedings;

d) To pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was appointed as Junior Secretariat Assistant (LDC) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the year 2010 and was promoted to the post of Senior Secretariat Assistant in the year 2020. It is further submitted that during the year 2022, the applicant was assigned duties of MTI/Inspector in the Veterinary Services Department.

3. Learned counsel submits that a complaint was lodged by one Shri Kapil Bhadana before the CBI alleging illegal demand of ₹10,000/- by the applicant. Pursuant thereto, FIR No. RC 0032022A0017 dated 24.04.2022 was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after investigation, the CBI has filed a charge-sheet before the competent court and the matter is presently sub judice. It is stated that the complainant has already been declared hostile and the case is pending for cross-examination before the CBI Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the respondents issued a departmental charge-sheet dated 16.03.2023, which is based on the same set of documents and witnesses as relied upon in the criminal case.

5. It is further submits that the applicant moved an application dated 10.09.2025 before the Inquiry Officer seeking deferment of examination of common witnesses till their examination before the criminal court. However, the said request has been rejected vide impugned order dated 15.10.2025 without considering the settled legal position.

6. On issuance of notice, learned counsel for the respondent filed their reply and submitted that the no cause of action has accrued in favour of the applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal under judicial review, as no enforceable legal right of the applicant has been violated by the answering respondents. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2006 SC 2609.

7. He further states that the present Original Application is based on misconceived facts as well as erroneous interpretation of law and is devoid of merit, and therefore deserves to be dismissed with costs.

8. Learned counsel further states that it is a settled proposition of law that in exercise of power of judicial review, the courts examine the decision-making process and not the decision itself, and interference is warranted only when the process is vitiated by arbitrariness, bias, or mala fides. He placed reliance upon Union of India vs. A.K. Narula, (2007) 11 SCC 10, and submitted that no such infirmity exists in the present case.

9. He further states that there is no procedural illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders dated 15.10.2025 and 16.03.2023. He submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 24.12.2025 (communicated on 06.01.2026), has already rejected the applicant’s repre