2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6589

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
2232/2020
O.A./1382/2020

A disciplinary authority cannot issue a disagreement note on an inquiry report after it has already communicated its acceptance of that report to the charged officer, as this violates Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 15 - Action on inquiry report - The disciplinary authority must forward a copy of the inquiry report, together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, to the government servant; if the authority has already communicated acceptance of the report, it cannot later issue a disagreement note.

(B) Judicial Review - Scope of - In disciplinary proceedings, judicial review is not an appeal; the court/tribunal does not re-appreciate evidence but restricts its review to whether natural justice has been complied with, the finding is based on some evidence, statutory rules have been observed, the finding is not perverse, and the penalty is proportionate. (Paras 6, 11)

(C) Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay - Unexplained delay in initiating proceedings may lead to quashing of charges; but where the delay is explained (e.g., by prior CBI investigation), the charge memorandum cannot be quashed solely on that ground. (Para 7)

(D) Lending and Borrowing Authority - Rule 20 of CCS (CCA) Rules - Where a government servant has returned from deputation to his parent department, the disciplinary authority is the parent department, even for charges related to the deputation tenure. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Deputy Director General, ISS, was served a major penalty charge memorandum on 31.08.2015 relating to irregularities during his tenure (2005-07) as Director, Central Board for Workers’ Education, Nagpur. An inquiry was held; the Inquiring Authority submitted a report on 16.01.2017 holding that none of the charges were proved. The Disciplinary Authority, through a memorandum dated 27.03.2017, stated that the inquiry report had been accepted and forwarded it to the applicant for his representation. Later, the authority obtained a second-stage advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) disagreeing with the inquiry report, issued a formal disagreement note on 23.07.2018, and thereafter referred the matter to the UPSC. The UPSC advised a penalty of 15% pension cut for three years. The Disciplinary Authority imposed that penalty on 19.01.2021. The applicant challenged the entire disciplinary proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal quashed all proceedings after the stage of supply of the inquiry report (27.03.2017). The memorandum dated 27.03.2017 unambiguously stated that the Disciplinary Authority had accepted the inquiry report. Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules does not permit the authority to issue a disagreement note after it has accepted the report; if it intends to disagree, it must state its tentative reasons along with the supply of the report. Issuing the disagreement note later (23.07.2018) was in clear violation of the statutory rules. Consequently, the CVC advice, UPSC advice, and the final punishment order were set aside.

Issues: - Whether the disciplinary proceedings were invalid due to the delay in issuing the charge memorandum. - Whether the charge memorandum could be issued by the parent department when the charges related to the applicant's tenure in a different organisation. - Whether the Disciplinary Authority could issue a disagreement note after having already communicated its acceptance of the inquiry report.

Ratio Decidendi: The Disciplinary Authority, having communicated its acceptance of the inquiry report to the charged officer, forfeited its right to subsequently issue a disagreement note. Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules mandates that any disagreement note must accompany the inquiry report when it is first forwarded; issuing it later vitiates the proceedings. A violation of statutory rules governing disciplinary proceedings is a ground for judicial review.

Result: O.A. allowed. The impugned charge memorandum was upheld, but all subsequent proceedings (CVC advice dated 13.06.2017, disagreement note dated 23.07.2018, UPSC advice dated 22.09.2020, and punishment order dated 19.01.2021) were quashed and set aside. No costs.

Table of Content
1. this group outlines the factual background of the case, including the applicant's prayers, the charge memorandum, the inquiry report, and the final punishment order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. this group presents the arguments and submissions of both the applicant and the respondents. (Para 3 , 4)
3. this group cites relevant case law on the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing the limited role of the court. (Para 5 , 6)
4. this group addresses the challenges to the charge sheet, including delay and jurisdiction, and upholds its validity. (Para 7 , 8)
5. this group examines the procedural violation where the disciplinary authority issued a disagreement note after accepting the inquiry report, contravening ccs (cca) rules. (Para 9 , 10)
6. this group forms the ratio decidendi, quashing all proceedings after the inquiry report was accepted due to procedural violation. (Para 11)
7. this group contains the final conclusion and order disposing of the oa. (Para 12)

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :

1. The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):

“8.1. to allow the present Application; 8.2. to quash and set aside the impugned Order of Penalty dated 19.01.2021 [Annexure: A-1];

8.3. to quash and set aside the impugned Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 31.08.2015 [Annexure: A-2]; or alternatively;

8.4. declare that the impugned Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 31.08.2015 [Annexure: A-2] has lapsed;

8.5. to quash and set aside the impugned Disagreement Note dated 23.07.2018 [Annexure: A-3]; 8.6. to consequently direct the Respondent to grant all consequential benefits to the Applicant, including opening of the Sealed Cover and grant of promotion if the Applicant has been found fit therein, and payment of retiral benefits not paid due to the pending Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 31.08.2015 [Annexure: A-2];

8.7. and as a consequence thereto, direct the Respondent Ministry to pay compound interest @18% per annum, compounded annually, on the dues payable from the date they were payable, till the payment is made by the Respondent;

8.8. to issue any such and further orders/directions this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and

8.9. to allow exemplary costs of the application to the Applicant.”

2. Applicant was served with a charge memorandum dated 31.08.2015. The charges contained in the said memorandum related to his tenure as Director, Central Board for Workers’ Education during the period 2005-07. The applicant made a representation against the charge memorandum on 14.10.2015. An inquiry was conducted and the inquiry report was submitted on 16.01.2017 holding that none of the charges against the applicant was proved. This report was supplied to the applicant on 27.03.2017 with the remark that the Disciplinary Authority had accepted the inquiry report. Subsequently, a disagreement note was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 23.07.2018 on the basis of 2^nd Stage advice of the CVC. Applicant made a representation against the Disciplinary Authority’s disagreement note on 11.08.2018. The case was referred to the UPSC for their advice. UPSC gave its advice recommending a penalty of 15% pension cut for 3 years. After considering the UPSC advice and the applicant’s representation against the advice, the Disciplinary Authority issued a punishment order on 19.01.2021 directing a cut of 15% on the applicant’s pension for a period of three years. This O.A. has been filed challenging the entire disciplinary proceedings against the applicant including the charge memorandum dated 31.08.2015 and the Disciplinary Authority’s final order dated 19.01.2021 imposing the punishment upon the applicant.

3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits the following:

3.1. The Charge Sheet has not been approved by the Competent Authority, making it bad and non-est in law.

3.2. The Charge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document