$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 16.01.2026 % Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2026 + LPA 313/2024 PARVEEN KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Appellant in person.

versus EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. L.R. Khatana, Adv. for R-1 to R-

4.

Mr. Sandeeep Mahapatra, CGSC with Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu and Mr.

Tribhuvan, Advs. for R-3.

Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr.Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Saksham Sharma and Mr. Mathy V Kutty, Advs. for R-5/UOI.

+ LPA 1045/2024 & CM APPL. 60976/2024 EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. L.R. Khatana, Adv.

versus PARVEEN KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Respondent no.1 in person.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, CGSC with Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu and Mr.Tribhuvan, Advs. for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

J U D G M E N T

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

1. Since these two Letter Patent Appeals challenge the same judgment and order dated 06.03.2024 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant in LPA 313/2024, namely Praveen Kumar has partly been allowed, with the consent of the parties the appeals were heard together and are being decided by the common judgment and order which follows:

2. For convenience, Praveen Kumar, the appellant in LPA 313/2024 shall be referred to as the “petitioner” and the Export Inspection Council, the appellant in LPA 1045/2024 shall be referred to as the “respondent” in this judgment.

FACTS

3. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as Technical Officer with the respondent, which is a statutory body created under Section 3 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act 1963. In respect of certain charges disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner and accordingly, a charge sheet dated 24.03.2014/27.03.2014 was served upon him. The charge sheet contained three articles of charge.

4. Article I of the charge contained an allegation that the petitioner was directed on 04.02.2014 to proceed on tour to Sub-Office, Kanpur of the Agency and to hold the said charge w.e.f 06.02.2014. The petitioner was charged with disobedience of this order dated 04.02.2014. It was also alleged in respect of this charge that he did not proceed to Kanpur despite the reminder dated 26.02.2024, by making representations and, thus, indulged in dilatory tactics and ultimately did not proceed to Kanpur on tour. According to the charge sheet, such an act amounted to disobedience on the part of the petitioner, in violation of Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which also amounted to grave misconduct on his part.

5. As per Article II, the petitioner instead of proceeding on tour to Kanpur pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2014, filed a tour programme which was vague and could not be considered for processing. The petitioner was informed, vide letter dated 06.02.2014, that there was no provision for providing train tickets for a touring officer and, as such, he was directed that he should submit a proper tour programme and proceed to Sub Office Kanpur, failing which the matter would be viewed seriously. Such an act, as per Article II of the charge sheet, was treated to be willful disobedience on the part of the petitioner, amounting to grave misconduct and violation of Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

6. Article III of the charge stated that the petitioner not only disobeyed the order dated 04.02.2014 to proceed to Kanpur rather, he vide his letters dated 11.02.2014 and 26.02.2014, raised certain issues which were not germane and in the said letters he used impolite, indecent, derogatory and irresponsible language in respect of superior officers levelling false and baseless allegations. This Article of Charges also stated that false, frivolous and baseless allegations were made by the petitioner without any basis or evidence, which was an act of unbecoming