1

O.A. No. 2796/2018

Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench: New Delhi

O.A. No. 2796/2018

Reserved on : 12.12.2022.

Pronounced on : 20.12.2022.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More,Chairman

Hon’ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)

Sh. Neeraj Agarwal,

Deputy Superintendent of

Police (Since dismissed) Group-A

Central Bureau of Investigation (CB)

Aged about 51 years

S/o Sh. S.R. Agarwal,

R/o H.No. 663-A, Dharam Vihar

Cooperative Housing Society,

Plot No.2, Sector-10,

Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

…. Applicant

(through Sh. Suresh Sharma, Advocate)

Versus

1.Secretary,

Department of Personnel and Training,

North Block, New Delhi-110001.

2.Director,

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),

North Block, New Delhi-110001.

3.Smt. Harshita Attaluri,

SP and Former Head of Department

(BS&FC) and at present

DIG, CBI, ACB, Mubai.

2

O.A. No. 2796/2018

4.Secretary,

Union Public Service Commission,

Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi.

…. Respondents

(through Sh. Hanu Bhaskar, Advocate)

O R D E R

Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)

Applicant joined Central Industrial Security

Force (CISF) as Sub-Inspector on 01.10.1988 and

joined

as

Inspector

in

Central

Bureau

of

Investigation

(CBI)

on

deputation

basis

on

09.09.1999. He was subsequently absorbed in CBI

on

20.08.2008

and

promoted

as

Deputy

Superintendent of Police (DSP) on 20.01.2014.

While working as DSP of BS&FC Unit of CBI at

Mumbai, he undertook various investigations in a

number of bank fraud cases. It is further

submitted that on 22.04.2017 a complaint was

filed against him and a trap was laid. The

applicant

was

arrested

on

23.04.2017

and

remained in police custody till 06.05.2017. He was

3

O.A. No. 2796/2018

granted bail on 06.05.2017. Subsequently, orders

for his deemed suspension were issued on

08.05.2017. No charge sheet was filed and his

suspension continued to be extended. On

06.04.2018, he was served with UPSC advice

dated 28.02.2018 by respondent No.1. He

submitted his representation dated 17.05.2018.

However, the respondents without taking into

account

representation

submitted

by

the

applicant passed the impugned dismissal order

dated 19.06.2018. Respondents had also invoked

Clause (b) to the second proviso under Article

311(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 19 (ii)

of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The impugned

order was served on the applicant on 29.06.2018.

Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the applicant

has filed the present O.A. seeking the following

reliefs:-

“(i)

To call for all the records of the case from

the

Respondents

pertaining

to

the

event/incidents mentioned in the O.A.

leading to issue of impugned dismissal

orders.

4

O.A. No. 2796/2018

(ii)

To declare the impugned dismissal Order

No.

221/25/2017-AVD-II(B)

dated

19.06.2018 as arbitrary, illegal and thus

(iii)

To quash the entire proceedings under

Clause(b) to the second proviso under

Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India

and Rule 19(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules,

1965 culminating

into

issue

of

the

impugned

dismissal

Order

No.

221/25/2017-AVD-II (B) dated 19.06.2018,

because of irregularities and illegalities

committed during the proceedings.

(iv)

To allow the OA with costs.

(v)

Any other orders may also be passed as

this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and

proper

in

the

existing

facts

and

circumstances of the case.”

2. It is the contention of the applicant that

while he was working as DSP in CBI, Mumbai, a

complaint was received against him and an FIR in

RC

No.

BA1/2017/A0017

was

registered.

Subsequently, a trap was laid and he was

arrested. The respondents issued the impugned

order of dismissal without conducting detailed

enquiry as envisaged under Rule-14 of the CCS

(CCA) Rules, 1965. The respondents have thus

violated the guidelines contained in DoP&T O.M.

5

O.A. No. 2796/2018

No. 11012/11/85-Estt.(A) dated 11.11.1985, wh