Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
References:- ["Nakul Prasad Kesharwani S/o Shri Jhakar Prasad VS Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Union of India VS A. N. Mohanan - 2007 3 Supreme 680"]- ["SATYA PRAKASH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - Delhi"]- ["SATYA PRAKASH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - Delhi"]- ["Devendra Kumar Meena vs M/o Corporate Affairs - Central Administrative Tribunal"]- ["SATYA PRAKASH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - Delhi"]-1224_2021)- ["P Krishnan vs M/o Defence - Central Administrative Tribunal"]- ["Secretary,Labour And Employment Government Of India VS Cherian Kurian S/o. Late Kurian - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 751"]- ["CHERIAN KURIAN vs THE SECRETARY - Kerala"]- ["Dibyajyoti Ghosh VS Coal India Limited - Calcutta"]- ["SATYA PRAKASH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - Delhi"]- ["SATYA PRAKASH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - Delhi"]
If you're a government servant facing a penalty of censure, you might have heard the notion that penalty of censure imposed cannot be challenged in CAT. This common misconception can leave employees feeling powerless. But is it true? In reality, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) does entertain challenges to censure penalties, a minor disciplinary action under rules like the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. However, success depends on specific grounds like procedural flaws or disproportionality.
This blog post dives deep into CAT's jurisdiction, scope of review, impact on promotions, and lessons from landmark cases. Whether you're navigating disciplinary proceedings or advising on employee rights, understanding these nuances is crucial. Note: This is general information based on precedents; consult a legal expert for your situation.
CAT has clear authority to hear challenges against censure, as it's a penalty affecting government servants' service conditions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Multiple rulings confirm CAT routinely reviews such cases, acting as a check on disciplinary authorities without functioning as a full appellate body.
For instance, CAT has allowed applications questioning censure's validity, especially when it impacts promotions. In one case, Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the application — High Court upheld the order in writ. Union of India VS A. N. Mohanan - 2007 3 Supreme 680 Though the Supreme Court later reversed on merits, holding censure as a blameworthy factor barring sealed cover opening, it affirmed CAT's jurisdiction to entertain the challenge. Union of India VS A. N. Mohanan - 2007 3 Supreme 680
Similarly, the respondent filed an application (OA No. 2402 of 1992) before the tribunal wherein he sought the relief that the sealed cover containing the recommendations of the DPC should be opened... The said application... has been allowed by the tribunal. State Of M. P. VS I. A. QURESHI - 1996 0 Supreme(SC) 27 The Supreme Court set it aside, clarifying that once imposed, censure bars promotion regardless of its minor nature, but CAT's role in reviewing was undisputed. State Of M. P. VS I. A. QURESHI - 1996 0 Supreme(SC) 27
In an ESIC matter, CAT scrutinized and upheld censure: The Tribunal was therefore justified in not interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority and the punishment of censure imposed upon the delinquent. Secretary,Labour And Employment Government Of India VS Cherian Kurian S/o. Late Kurian - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 751 This demonstrates CAT's competence to examine censure without blanket non-interference.
Recent sources reinforce this. In a Delhi High Court case, CAT's order on promotion post-censure was challenged: The High Court noted that awarding of penalty of censure would not affect the promotion of the respondent and the department was not right in contending that the awarding of penalty (censure) would stand on the way of promotion. SATYA PRAKASH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORSSatya Prakash vs Union of India Here, CAT held penalty of censure is not a bar for promotion, dismissing the department's writ. UNION OF INDIA vs A.N. MOHANAN
CAT's review is limited—it doesn't re-appreciate evidence but checks for Wednesbury unreasonableness, natural justice violations, or shocking disproportionality. Tribunal is competent... to interfere with punishment... on the ground that the same is excessive or disproportionate... only in exceptional and rare cases, when punishment... shocks conscience of Tribunal or is so unreasonable. Union of India VS Lt. Col. Kuldeep Yadav - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1073
Principles of natural justice apply even to minor penalties: awarding censure without affording an opportunity... is violative of the principles of natural justice. State Of U. P. VS Vijay Kumar Tripathi - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 1242 Tribunals thus probe procedural lapses.
Proportionality guides intervention: Court/Tribunal while exercising... judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty... If the punishment... shocks the conscience... it may... direct... to reconsider the penalty imposed. Kailash Nath Gupta VS Enquiry Officer, (R. K. Rai) , Allahabad Bank - 2003 3 Supreme 318 In one instance, CAT reduced removal to censure, upheld by courts. UNION OF INDIA VS SATPAL SINGH - 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 2635
Other cases echo this. In a LIC promotion denial, the court quashed censure imposed without proceedings: The compliance of principles of natural justice is necessary in disciplinary proceedings, and the denial of promotion based on a penalty imposed without proper disciplinary proceedings is unjust. Erina Michael VS Life Insurance Corporation Of India - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1881 CAT-like scrutiny set aside penalties lacking evidence, as in Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has allegedly endorsed the note of conversion of penalty of Removal into Censure. However, that note is not forthcoming... Vithoba Dhondbaji Shendre vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited - 2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8814
Censure often triggers CAT challenges via promotion blocks under sealed cover rules. Once the punishment has been granted, the delinquent employee is not entitled for the promotion irrespective of the nature of the punishment. State Of M. P. VS I. A. QURESHI - 1996 0 Supreme(SC) 27 CAT has directed cover openings post-censure, though higher courts reversed, stressing finality. Union of India VS A. N. Mohanan - 2007 3 Supreme 680
Contrasting views exist: Some rulings clarify censure isn't always a bar. Awarding of penalty of censure would not affect the promotion... penalty of censure is not a bar for promotion. SATYA PRAKASH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS In another, post-exoneration and censure, promotion was considered: On 20.12.2011, a minor penalty of ‘censure’ was imposed... the respondent No.1 submitted a representation... for promoting him. Delhi State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited VS Bharat Ahuja - 2018 Supreme(Del) 1093
A key principle: Promotion timing is contingent upon resolution of imposed penalties, emphasizing the necessity for finality in disciplinary proceedings before eligibility for promotion is considered. Satya Prakash vs Union of India After censure's currency, eligible employees may claim retrospective promotion. G. Ramesh VS Union of India Rep. by General Manager, Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 148
In DSIIDC, CAT upheld eligibility despite censure, factoring ad hoc service. Delhi State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited VS Bharat Ahuja - 2018 Supreme(Del) 1093 Courts remitted non-speaking censure orders for reconsideration. K. C. Khanna VS Union of India through the Comptroller and Auditor General of India - 2016 Supreme(Pat) 814
Petitioners must prove prejudice; re-agitation of settled issues is barred. K. C. Khanna VS Union of India through the Comptroller and Auditor General of India - 2016 Supreme(Pat) 814 Natural justice breaches, like no notice before censure, invite quashing. M. Rajendran VS Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai - 2010 Supreme(Mad) 3894
Aggrieved servants should approach CAT promptly, alleging:- Natural justice violations (no hearing). State Of U. P. VS Vijay Kumar Tripathi - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 1242- Sealed cover misuse. Union of India VS A. N. Mohanan - 2007 3 Supreme 680- Disproportionality. Union of India VS Lt. Col. Kuldeep Yadav - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1073
Focus on unreasonableness, not evidence re-weigh. Authorities: Ensure hearings to bolster defenses. Note Supreme Court's appellate reversals favoring originals.
The myth that censure cannot be challenged in CAT is debunked—jurisdiction exists, but interference is exceptional. Key grounds: procedure, proportionality, promotion effects. Cases like State Of M. P. VS I. A. QURESHI - 1996 0 Supreme(SC) 27, SATYA PRAKASH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS, and Erina Michael VS Life Insurance Corporation Of India - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1881 highlight viable paths while underscoring deference.
Government servants: Act swiftly with strong grounds. This overview draws from precedents; outcomes vary by facts. Always seek professional legal advice tailored to your case—this is not advice.
Word count approx. 1050
#CensurePenalty, #CATJurisdiction, #GovtServantRights
In the present case also, the disciplinary authority having found that all the charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved, imposed a penalty of censure on him. ... From bare perusal of the order dated 11.4.2019 passed by the disciplinary authority it is seen that the disciplinary authority found that all the charges are not proved against the petitioner and hence imposed penalty of censure on him. ... It is pertinent to mention here that....
The order of CAT was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition. ... The High Court noted that awarding of penalty of censure would not affect the promotion of the respondent and the department was not right in contending that the awarding of penalty (censure) would stand on the way of promotion. Accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. ... CAT by its order dated 18th June, 2004 held that penalty#HL_EN....
The order of CAT was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition. ... The High Court noted that awarding of penalty of censure would not affect the promotion of the respondent and the department was not right in contending that the awarding of penalty (censure) would stand on the way of penalty of censure is not a bar for promotion and though the sealed cover procedu....
The order of CAT was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition. ... The High Court noted that awarding of penalty of censure would not affect the promotion of the respondent and the department was not right in contending that the awarding of penalty (censure) would stand on the way of penalty of censure is not a bar for promotion and though the sealed cover procedu....
The order of CAT was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition. ... The High Court noted that awarding of penalty of censure would not affect the promotion of the respondent and the department was not right in contending that the awarding of penalty (censure) would stand on the way of promotion. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed." ... CAT by its order dated 18th June, 2004 held that penalty#HL....
CAT by its order dated 18th June, 2004 held that penalty of censure is not a bar for promotion and though the of penalty of censure would not affect the promotion of the The order of CAT was challenged before the High Court 13.9.2001 the penalty of censure was awarded. ... does not amount to awarding of penalty, the same is clearly untenable.
The Charge Sheet was issued on 27th July 1996 & Inquiry was concluded on 30th November 1999.the Penalty of censure which the applicant has challenged was issued on 31 st July 2003. ... However, the respondent proposed a penalty of Censure as per the advice of CVC, under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964; DoP&T was also approached and the penalty of Censure was finally imposed on the applicant ... The representation/appeal against the penalty#H....
The order of CAT was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition. ... The High Court noted that awarding of penalty of censure would not affect the promotion of the respondent and the department was not right in contending that the awarding of penalty (censure) would stand on the way of penalty of censure is not a bar for promotion and though the sealed cover procedu....
The employee filed an appeal and challenged the order of penalty. ... Surely, the CAT would examine all aspects of the mater including the effect of review committee not having the set aside the penalty and allowed the petition. ... The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction in pay p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:225pt
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has allegedly endorsed the note of conversion of penalty of Removal into Censure. However, that note is not forthcoming. ... Any how, this note does not show that the applicant had endorsed the note of conversion of major penalty of Removal into minor penalty of Censure. Therefore, it cannot be said that the charge levelled against the applicant has been proved. ... Thereafter, a note was allegedly endorsed ....
From the bare reading of Regulation 39 it becomes immensely clear that a penalty can be imposed only after meeting certain quintessential requirements which are: The Respondents vide their letter dated 2nd August 2013 have imposed a penalty of 'Censure' in terms of Regulation 39(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations.
On the recommendation of the DPC, a promotion order was issued promoting officers junior to the respondent No.1 to the subject post. However, subsequently, ‘on 19.07.2013, the Appellate Authority exonerated the respondent No.1 of the charges. On 20.12.2011, a minor penalty of ‘censure” was imposed on the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 submitted a representation to the petitioners/DSIIDC for promoting him to the subject post, having been exonerated.
It is thereafter the appellate authority imposed the penalty of Censure. It is the said order dated 12.11.2012, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the application finding that the order of the appellate authority is non-speaking and cryptic and, therefore, the matter was remitted to the Dy. C.A.G. of India to dispose of the appeal.
However, instead of acting on the report of the inquiry officer, which is the result of an elaborate inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, having disagreed with the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, issued a notice to the petitioner, for which the petitioner submitted his detailed reply, whereby denied the allegations raised against him. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, imposed a penalty of Censure, vide its Penalty Advice, dated 01.06.2007.
Though the enquiry officer found him not guilty, even without giving notice to the petitioner, by deferring with the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority erroneously imposed the punishment of censure. When the prosecution witness turned hostile, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding him not guilty on the charges levelled against the petitioner. Nevertheless, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty of censure by order dated 15.03.96. However, the said punishment was accepted by the petitioner, as the punishment of censure was mino....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
