Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5300
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Sandeep Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.No. 260/00517 of 2024
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.311(1)
Headnote
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay - Conclusion of inquiry - Prem Nath Bali principle - Requirement of concluding disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time frame - Failure to conclude proceedings within the specified period causes prejudice to the employee and warrants quashing of proceedings (Para 1).
Facts of the case:
The applicant contested a disciplinary memorandum dated 09.12.2020 issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging that the charge sheet was issued without following the mandatory procedural requirement of obtaining separate approval from the Disciplinary Authority for the initiation of the inquiry and the issuance of the charge memo. The applicant also submitted that the inquiry was not concluded within the time limit stipulated by the Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that independent application of mind and separate approvals for initiation and issuance of the charge memo are mandatory. Since the respondents admitted that both approvals were granted at once on the same date, the procedure was fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, citing judicial precedents regarding procedural delays and the exoneration of co-accused in the same incident, the Tribunal quashed the charge sheet.
Issues: Whether the failure to obtain separate approvals for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the issuance of the charge memo renders the proceedings void and whether excessive delay constitutes grounds for quashing.
Ratio Decidendi: If the statute requires a thing to be done in a certain way, it must be done in that way or not at all; since Rule 14 mandates divisible stages of approval, a consolidated approval is legally unsustainable.
Result: Original Application allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J.M.Pattnaik, Jyoti Ranjan Behera
For the Respondents: D.K.Mallick
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts and procedural contentions regarding disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. tribunal observations on similar disciplinary cases and procedural history. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. requirement of independent and separate approvals for initiation and charge memo issuance. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final determination quashing the charge sheet due to procedural non-compliance. (Para 8 , 9) |
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant has filed this OA challenging and seeking to quash the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under rule 14 of CCs (CC&A) Rules, 1965 vide Memorandum No. 39/2020 dated 09.12.2020 [F.No. C-14011/09/2020-Ad.V/8236] and subsequent orders passed relating to appointment of IO and PO etc. and to direct the respondents to pay all service and financial benefits retrospectively; by following the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. B.V.Gopinath , 2014(1) SCC 351, and Sunny Abraham Vs UOI , 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1284, since the proceedings were initiated without following the due procedure provided under CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 inasmuch as, at the first face, taking decision that there are materials for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, thereafter, approval of the charge sheet and, upon consideration of the defence of the applicant, to decide whether to proceed further with inquiry or to inquire into the matter by appointing IO and PO. Also, the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Prem Nath Bali Vs Reg., High Court of Delhi & Anr. AIR 2016 SC 101, and the related decision of the CAT, Allahabad Bench Allahabad dated 28.01.2026 in OA No. 29/2023 [Mukesh Meena Vs UOI & Ors] to state that the disciplinary proceedings is liable to be quashed since, in the instant case, memorandum of charge was issued on 09.12.2020; applicant submitted his reply on 22.02.2021 and IO/PO was appointed on 27.12.2021 but despite due cooperation of the applicant, the proceedings have not been concluded even within the outer limit of one year fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali (supra) which has caused serious prejudice to him. Further, the applicant has taken the stand that the allegation made against him in the charge sheet is without any evidence and, that, the applicant was neither the officer-in-charge of the Container, in question, nor he has in any manner directly or indirectly involved on the allegation leveled against him. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has also relied on the decision in the case of Sardar Prakash Singh Badal Vs V.K.Khanna and others, (2001) 2 SCC 330, empowering the Tribunal to quash the charge sheet at the early stage to save further humiliation and harassment to an employee if the charge sheet on the face value is not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to the applicant, in the charge sheet, it is stated that the alleged incident was of April, 2018 whereas charge sheet was issued on 09.12.2020 and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed on delay and latches, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Bani Singh, AIR 1990 SC 1308; P.V.Mahadevan Vs M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, JT 2005 (7) SC 417; and M.V.Bijlani Vs UOI, (2006) 54 SCC 88.
2. The applicant has also taken the stand that in the charge sheet dated 09.12.2020, it is alleged that the applicant had conspired with Sri Mukesh Meena, DC, NSPU, R&I. Similar charge sheet was issued to Sri Mukesh Meena alleging conspiracy with applicant and one Sri Nilesh Singh, who was an outsider and stating to be the middle man. Charge sheets were also issued to Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, DC M&P and Sri Sudarshan Meena, DC, SIIB alleging that they conspired with the said Sri Nilesh Singh relating to the allegation made in the charge sheet issued to the applicant and to others, named above. Disciplinary proceedings initiated again
