Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Minaxi M Pandya vs M/O Textiles on 5 March, 2026
1 OA No. 72/2016
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
Original Application No. 72/2016
Order reserved on: 05/01/2026
Dated of order: 05/03/2026.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Minaxi M Pandya,
Aged 43 years, lastly working
as "Art Designer/ Textile Designer
in the office of Development
Commissioner (Handloom) in the
Weavers Service Center,
Mumbai and residing at B-2,
Mahesh Darshan CHS Ltd,
Kandar Pada, Link Road, Opp.
D-Mart. Dahisar (West),
Mumbai- 400 068 ...Applicant
(By advocate: Shri Ramesh Ramamurthy a/w
Shri Saikumar Ramamurthy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
through the Secretary,
Ministry of Textiles
Govt. of India, Room No. 10-A,
Udyog Bhuvan, New Delhi - 110 011
2. The Development Commissioner
Office of Development Commissioner
(Handloom), Ministry of Textiles,
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode=
110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7,
Rashmi
serialNumber=
5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497
409a4527c20, telephoneNumber=
bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0
3a11e5f3ff, title=0779
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
2 OA No. 72/2016
Government of India,
Udyog Bhuvan, New Delhi- 110 011.
3. The Director,
Weavers Service Centre,
15-A, Mama Parmanand Marg,
Opera House, Mumbai- 400 004. ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri N.K. Rajpurohit a/w Shri P. Khosla)
ORDER
Per: Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:
a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the order of the Disciplinary authority dated 13th October, 2014 (Annexure "A-1").
b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 13 th April, 2015 (Annexure "A-2)".
c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant in service with full service benefits including continuity of service, full back wages, seniority, promotion and all other admissible services benefits;
d) Such other and further orders be passed as the facts and circumstances of the case may require;
e) Costs of this Application be provided for.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21/27/08/2004 advertisement issued in the Employment News for filling up the post of Art Designer Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 3 OA No. 72/2016 in the office of Development Commissioner Handloom. The applicant applied pursuant to the said Advertisement enclosing all relevant documents and the applicant was called for interview after due scrutiny of application.
2.1. On 03.09.2004, the applicant was issued an appointment letter and was appointed on the post of Art Designer in the office of Respondent No. 3.
2.2. Before the applicant actually joined the said post of Art Designer, she has received an intimation on 10.02.2005 from the respondents intimating her that her appointment to the post of Art Designer is withheld until further orders by the Competent Authority. 2.3. Further, letter dated 16.08.2005 was received from the respondents and the applicant was allowed to join duty and applicant was directed to report for duty at the Weavers Service Centre, Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
2.4. On 22.08.2005, the applicant gave her acceptance letter to the respondents accepting the offer of appointment and joined duty at the Weavers Service Centre, West Zone, at Raigarh. 2.5. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.01.2006 was issued by the respondents intimating that show cause why her service should Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 4 OA No. 72/2016 not be cancelled for submission of alleged fictious experience certificate.
2.6. The aforesaid show cause notice was replied by the applicant on 29.01.2006 and thereafter, no further communication/order was received to the applicant. However, she was orally informed that her explanation has been accepted and the matter has been closed. 2.7. Thereafter, memorandum dated 07.04.2008 was issued by the respondent no. 3 in which it has been stated that her probation period of two years is completed on 28.08.2007 successfully and applicant was allowed to continue on the said post on a long-term basis. 2.8. Thereafter, memorandum dated 02.11.2011 was issued from the office of respondent no. 2 informing that a complaint has been received to Director, West Zone in Weavers' Service Centre, Mumbai on 31.08.2005 stating that the applicant was selected for the post of Art Designer does not have any work experience and submitted work experience certificate even though she has never worked in any organization, thereby misleading the department and depriving the genuine & experienced candidates of the employment opportunity. On that basis, an explanation was called from the applicant. 2.9. Thereafter, by memorandum dated 17.11.2011 the applicant was directed to produce valid original certificates/documents with special Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 5 OA No. 72/2016 reference to experience certificate. The applicant has also submitted detailed reply on 15.11.2011.
2.10. Thereafter, memorandum/charge sheet dated 03.01.2012 (Annexure A-14) was issued to the applicant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 levelling four articles of charges.
2.11. The allegations in the charge sheet pertains to the experience certificate submitted by the applicant from M/s Megh Dhanushya Printer, Mumbai was alleged to be fictious as mentioned in the Article of charge no. 1 and other three articles referred to Rule-3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and the instructions in the attestation form. 2.12. In the said charge sheet, the complaint dated 31.08.2005 from Shri. R Singh was not made one of the relied upon documents in support of the allegations. Further, the said relied upon documents of the year 5 to 7 years prior to the issue of the charge sheet. Further, there is no reference in the said charge sheet about the earlier enquiry made by the respondent by way of issue of memorandum dated 19.01.2006 and there is also no reference to further office memorandum dated 07.04.2008 whereby the applicant probation was treated as successfully completed and the applicant was appointed on permanent basis.
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 6 OA No. 72/2016 2.13. Further, the charge sheet memorandum does not refer to the anonymous complaint received in the Ministry on 10.11.2010, which is referred to in the show cause memorandum dated 02.11.2011 issued prior to the issue of charge sheet. Further, after having closed the original complaint in the year 2005 after due verification and also allowing the applicant be confirmed in Government service by closing the probation period again action taken on the same allegations, which is not permissible in the law.
2.14. It is stated that the matter relating to the submission of alleged fictious work experience certificate had been properly verified in January, 2006 and the matter has been closed at that time by the respondents after due verification of the said complaint. 2.15. It is stated that there is no power in the respondents to re-open that said matter after 6 years. Earlier the said anonymous complaint is entertained but the said complaint is not made a relied upon documents in support of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
2.16. Therefore, it is clear that the entire proceedings initiated against the applicant are vindictive, malafide and done for extraneous consideration other than for bonafide reason. Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 7 OA No. 72/2016 2.17. It is further submitted that the initiation of proceedings after a delay of 8 years from the date of her initial appointment is not explained.
2.18. It is submitted that somebody is bent upon harassing the applicant and the respondents are supporting such illegal action by their action and therefore, the entire circumstances raises a real apprehension that the entire action of the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant is not bonafide. 2.19. It is submitted that work experience certificates submitted at the time of initial recruitment in the year 2004 were genuine certificates and which certificates were given after the applicant has actually work in the said organization for the period mentioned in the work experience certificate.
2.20. It is further submitted that applicant has not submitted any fictious work experience certificate and all the letters written by the so-
called proprietor of Megh Dhanushya Printers are all letters issued by the said person to oblige the respondents and there is no truth in the said statement.
2.21. On 14th January, 2012 the applicant has submitted letter to the respondent no. 2 for providing copy of the complaint dated 31.08.2005 Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 8 OA No. 72/2016 made by Shri. R Singh mentioned in the charge sheet which was received along with reply dated 19.01.2012. 2.22. Looking to the complaint of Shri. R Singh dated 22.08.2005 in the first place is not a relied upon documents in support of the allegation in the charge sheet. Further, the said complaint if seen would reveal that there is no address or particulars given by the said complaint and the entire tenor of the complaint indicates that the said person appears to be writing on behalf of some candidates or official who is not selected. The said complaint is totally vague, misleading without any particulars.
2.23. On 01.02.2012, respondent no. 2 appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer for conducting the department enquiry. On 01.03.2012, the applicant has prayed for dropping of the charges vide letter dated 01.03.2012 and closure of the enquiry but the said request was rejected by respondent no. 2 vide reply dated 07.03.2012. 2.24. Thereafter, the Original Application No. 284/2012 was filed before the CAT Mumbai Bench challenging the charge sheet dated 03.01.2012 in which on 17.04.2012 notices were issued. 2.25. It is stated that even though the notices were issued to the authorities, the enquiry officer proceeded to hold the enquiry under the said charge sheet.
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 9 OA No. 72/2016 2.26. It is stated that the enquiry officer has acted in a high-handed manner and without even observing the basic principles of natural justice has proceeded to conduct the enquiry. 2.27. Another letter dated 15.06.2012 was submitted to respondent no. 2 pointing out the attitude of the Enquiry Officer and requested to at least defer the enquiry till the matter is heard by the Tribunal in OA No. 284/2012. Thereafter, no action has been taken by the respondent no. 2 on the request of the applicant.
2.28. It is submitted that even though the enquiry was held in an improper manner with long gaps between various dates of hearing and no proper notice given of the same to the applicant. Further, though only one witness Shaikh Mohammed Moin from M/s. Megh Dhanushya Printers was examined and even the said witness did not prove any of the letters written by him nor any of the documents relied upon documents in that behalf.
2.29. Further, the Enquiry Officer in total breach of the principles of natural justice and without notice to the applicant to place on record additional documents which were not relied upon documents, and marked them as the documents P-5 to P-8 which was a totally illegal action on the part of the enquiry officer.
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 10 OA No. 72/2016 2.30. It is submitted that firstly the complaint by R. Singh in the year 2005 was not a relied upon document nor the said R. Singh a witness in the said enquiry nor the said documents were proved. Further, even the anonymous complaint of 2010 is taken on record by the Enquiry Officer, though it was not listed as a relied upon document. All these documents were taken on record without providing any of the said documents.
2.31. It is stated that on the first date of enquiry 12.06.2012, the applicant attended the said enquiry and which was the preliminary enquiry, where the denial of the applicant was recorded. The more shocking part was without the applicant getting any opportunity to engage a defence assistant to prepare herself for the enquiry the statement of Shaikh Mohammed Moin of Megh Dhanushya Printers was also recorded in the preliminary enquiry itself, without holding a regular hearing for the said purpose. The applicant being not conversant with the rules related to the departmental enquiry was not aware of the illegality committed by the enquiry officer at that time. The further illegality was that the said witness was closed on that day, he was not even allowed to be cross examined by the applicant nor any date fixed for cross examination by the enquiry officer. All this shows that there was a marked bias against the applicant by the enquiry Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 11 OA No. 72/2016 officer who appears to have been briefed to complete the enquiry in the fastest possible time and submit report holding the applicant guilty irrespective of the record in the said enquiry. 2.32. On the next date, enquiry was fixed after 10 months i.e. on 05.04.2013. On that date the applicant could not remain present and without transacting any business the enquiry proceedings were closed. 2.33. The Enquiry Officer wrote a letter dated 10.06.2013 to the applicant and Presenting Officer, however, such letter did not contain any mention about the next date of hearing. Thereafter, another notice dated 19.06.2013 was received informing the next date of hearing on 12.07.2013. It was not understood why after the enquiry was closed, a date is fixed in the enquiry.
2.34. It is submitted that another letter dated 19.06.2013 was submitted to Enquiry Officer regarding the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and another letter to respondent no. 2 regarding the manner in which the enquiry was proceeded with the request for stay of enquiry till Original Application filed by the applicant is heard and disposed of by the Tribunal. In response to the said letter, the applicant received a reply dated 25.06.2013 from the Enquiry Officer that next date of hearing is fixed on 12.07.2013 and she should attend the enquiry failing which it would be concluded ex parte. Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 12 OA No. 72/2016 2.35. Thereafter, by letter dated 10.07.2013 the Enquiry Officer itself postponed the date of fixed hearing i.e. 12.07.2013. 2.36. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17.09.2013, it is informed that enquiry will be conducted on 24.09.2013, hardly giving 4 days' notice to the applicant.
2.37. On 24.09.2013, the applicant was forced by the Enquiry Officer to give in writing that she is not attending the enquiry. 2.38. It is stated that other than on the first day of preliminary enquiry on 12.06.2012, no business was transacted on the other days. There was no order that the Departmental evidence was concluded and that the applicant could lead her defence evidence. Further, the applicant was not examined by the Enquiry Officer as mandatorily required under Rules 14/ (18) of the CCS/CCA Rules. There was a total violation of all principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry. 2.39. On 23.09.2013 without bringing any evidence on the part of the department, the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report dated 24.01.2014 and held the charges as proved. A copy of the enquiry report was given to the applicant vide letter dated 08.08.2014 after 8 months of submission of the report by the Enquiry Officer. Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 13 OA No. 72/2016 2.40. It is stated that even before the enquiry report was submitted the enquiry officer had not furnished to the applicant, the copies of the daily order sheet or statement of the witness recorded in the enquiry, which were required to be done mandatorily under the CCS-CCA Rules and the applicant had to send letters dated 07.11.2013, 05.12.2013, for furnishing the copies of the said documents which was supplied to the applicant along with letter dated 13.12.2013 after enquiry was closed. 2.41. Thereafter, the applicant has submitted written brief on 26.12.2013.
2.42. It is stated that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are also perverse and reflects a biased approach on the part of the Enquiry Officer.
2.43. Reason for disbelieving her employment with M/s. Megh Dhanushya Printers is a 4 months certificate course done by the applicant with the Development Commissioner for handloom, Weavers Service Centre at Jaipur from 01.11.1998 to 28.02.1999. 2.44. It is stated that the first charge of producing fictious experience certificate itself is not proved and consequently the other three charges which are linked to the main charge would also stand not proved. Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 14 OA No. 72/2016 2.45. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 13.10.2014 and without deciding any of the issues raised by the applicant in her reply to the enquiry officer report and without assigning any reasons rejected the said representation of the applicant and imposed the punishment of removal from service of the applicant.
2.46. It is stated that the penalty order was signed by the additional Development Commissioner and not by the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has not been furnished to the applicant till date, nor there is any mention that the Disciplinary Authority has approved the said penalty being imposed on the applicant. Further, the said order was endorsed to the Vigilance Section, it is clear that the Vigilance Section has played a major role in the initiation of the Disciplinary Proceedings and imposition of the punishment of removal from the service of the applicant. 2.47. Thereafter, an appeal dated 05.12.2014 was submitted to respondent no. 1 against the said penalty order. The said appeal was a detailed appeal running into 12 pages with 26 annexures with the entire factual position and the ground of appeal were set out in detail in the said appeal memo.
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 15 OA No. 72/2016 2.48. However, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the applicant and has not dealt with the contentions of the applicant.
The Appellate Authority also acted in breach of mandatory provisions of Rule-29 of the CCS(CCA) Rules. Therefore, challenging the order of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, the present OA has been submitted.
3. After notice, the official respondents have filed the reply and contested the OA.
3.1. It is stated that the applicant has challenged the order of termination dated 21.10.2014 and confirmed in appeal by order dated 10.02.2016, which is passed after conducting the Departmental Enquiry.
3.2. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Principal Secretary Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Vs. M. Adinarayan, (2004) 12 SCC 579 that the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of appeal over a decision based on the finding of disciplinary proceedings. Where there are some relevant materials, which the Disciplinary Authority has accepted, it is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach the conclusion. The Administrative Tribunal cannot ignore the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the truth or otherwise, the charge is a matter Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 16 OA No. 72/2016 for Disciplinary Authority to go into. Judicial review cannot extent to examination of the correctness of the charges, as it is not an appeal but only a review of the manner in which decision was made. In another case, Sayyed Rahamuddin Vs. Director General CSIR and others, (2001) 9 SCC 575, the Apex Court has held that it is well settled that the conclusion or the finding of the fact arrived in a disciplinary enquiry can be interfered with by the Court only when there are no material for the said conclusion or the conclusion cannot be that of a reasonable man. In case of Damopanha Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Anr.
Vs. Munna Lal Jain, 2005 AIR SCW 95, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the scope of judicial review is limited, the court should not interfere with administrative decision unless it was illogical or was shocking to conscious of the Court.
3.3. In the case of Kailashnath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer, Allahabad Bank and Ors. 2003 (9) SCC 480 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited. In case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. Vs. P.C. Kakkar 2003 (4) SCC 364 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court should not interfere with the Administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety and was shocking to the conscious of the court.
Digitally signed by RashmiDN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 17 OA No. 72/2016 In the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. As per Wednesbary case 1948 KB 223, the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited. In case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749 held that in a case of departmental enquiry the scope of judicial review is limited, Court/Tribunal cannot interfere with findings of facts based on evidence and substitute its own independent findings.
3.4. It is stated that applicant has submitted her experience (1) certificate of 2½ years at SEJAL GLASS CRAFT Pvt. Ltd. (2) 6 months free-lance designer at Weavers Service Centre, Nagpur and (3) M/s.
Megh Dhanushya Printers, Mumbai, from June 1998 to 2002. Earlier the documents of the applicant were not scrutinized/verified through the authority those who have issued. Two complaints were received i.e. Shri R. Singh & Shri Surender K dated 22.8.2005 & 15.11.2010 respectively. On verification it was found that the certificate issued in the name of M/s. Megh Dhanushya Printers, Mumbai was bogus.
3.5. It is submitted that the memorandum dated 07.04.2008 was issued by respondent no. 3 and allowed the applicant to continue on Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 18 OA No. 72/2016 the post as temporary capacity. No permanency order was issued. It is denied that the case was re-opened after six years. 3.6. It is submitted that the case of the applicant was under
investigation and was never closed.
3.7. It is further submitted that the applicant was given notice on 19.01.2006 to which reply was submitted on 29.01.2006. Her reply was examined with the information of the institute from which experience certificates were issued. The proceedings initiated are neither vindictive nor malafide.
3.8. Zonal Director intimated O/o D.C (Handlooms) on 21.10.2005 that experience certificate M/s Sejal Glass Craft Ltd., Mumbai has been neither signed by anybody nor it has been given on the letter head, Zonal Director WSC, Mumbai letter dated 25.11.2005 has submitted a report in the matter.
3.9. It is submitted that the Zonal Director WSC, Mumbai vide letter dated 09.11.2005 informed that the proprietor of M/s Megh Dhanushya Printers, Mumbai was called in this office on the issue of experience certificate to Smt. M.M. Pandya. He confirmed verbally that Mrs. Pandya had worked as Designer in his printing unit earlier but that certificate was not issued as stated by them.
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 19 OA No. 72/2016 3.10. It is further submitted that Shri Sheikh Mohd. Moin, Proprietor of M/s. Megh Dhanushya Printers vide letter dated 17.10.2005 & 16.11.2005 has stated that their unit is a typical tiny self-employed sector where owner himself works as a Craftsman. They can't afford to pay such fancy salary Rs.8,500/- and certificate was not issued by them.
3.11. Accordingly, as approved by the then DC (HL), ZD (WZ) was directed vide office letter dated 04.01.2006 to call for show cause from Smt. M.M. Pandya Art Designer as to why her probation and appointment in the Government service should not be terminated? 3.12. It is submitted that in reply to the Zonal Director, Weavers' Service Centre (West Zone) letter, the Proprietor of M/s Megh Dhanushya Printers, Mumbai has confirmed that Smt. M.M. Pandya has neither worked with them nor any such experience certificate has been issued by them. He also stated that they have never got printed such letter head and his name (Proprietor) is in fact Shri Sheikh Mohd.
Moin Mohd. Amin instead of Moin Mubin as signed in experience certificate (Allegedly forged).
3.13. It is submitted that in reply to show cause served upon by the ZD (WZ) to Smt. Minaxi M. Pandya Art Designer on dated 19.01.2006, she has failed to furnish any supportive documents to corroborate her Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 20 OA No. 72/2016 claim that she worked with M/s Megh Dhanushya Printers, Mumbai from June 1998 to 2002.
3.14. It is submitted that in response of letter dated 28.07.2006 Shri R. Kumar the then Director (West Zone), Mumbai in his letter dated 07.08.2006 stated that an enquiry may be set up as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rule 1965 to prove the charge against her since approval for appointment of Smt. M.M Pandya was received from this office vide letter dated 11.02.2005 an action may be taken against her by the HQ. For the purpose an enquiry may be set up and suitable action may be suggested to be taken against her by the ZD (WZ) in the matter. Therefore, there is no delay in taking decision. 3.15. In respect of the procedural illegalities pointed out by the applicant in OA from para 4.24 to 4.37, it is the stand of the respondents reply that applicant was not obeying the instructions of the Enquiry Officer and applicant had to coordinate and cooperate with the enquiry and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. 3.16. It is stated that after following the principles and providing all opportunities to the applicant, report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer and order of punishment was passed.
3.17. In Appeal, the Appellate Authority has dealt with the contentions raised by the applicant observing that the applicant has failed to submit Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 21 OA No. 72/2016 any new findings other than which has already been placed and confirmed the order of disciplinary authority. 3.18. Therefore, on the basis of reply of the official respondents, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Thereafter, rejoinder and sur-rejoinder were filed by the applicant and official respondents respectively, supporting and reiterating their earlier stand in the OA.
5. We have heard Shri Ramesh Ramamurthy a/w Shri Saikumar Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N.K. Rajpurohit a/w Shri. P Khosla, learned counsel for the respondents and peruse the records.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that pursuant to the employment notice, the applicant participated in the selection process and submitted the experience certificate as per rules. However, after the issuance of appointment order on the post of Art Designer in the office of respondent no. 3 before she could actually join on the said post she has received an intimation dated 10.02.2005 that her appointment to the post of Art Designer is withheld until further orders by the competent authority. Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 22 OA No. 72/2016
7. Thereafter, she has received letter dated 16.08.2005 from the respondents for joining on the post of Art Designer, at Weavers Service Centre, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh and the applicant joined duty on 29.08.2005
8. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.01.2006 was issued to the applicant on the basis of the allegations of fictious experience certificate to which applicant has submitted explanation on 29.01.2006 and thereafter, no order was received to the applicant, meaning thereby her explanation was accepted by the department and thereafter, her probation period of 2 years was successfully completed on 28.08.2007, which was communicated vide letter dated 07.04.2008.
9. However, after about 3 years another memorandum dated 02.11.2011 was received by the applicant from the office of respondent no. 2 on the allegations of fictious experience certificate, to which a detailed reply/explanation was submitted by the applicant on 15.11.2011.
10. Thereafter, charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules dated 03.01.2012 was issued to the applicant without supplying the copy of complaint from Shri. R. Singh and therefore Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 23 OA No. 72/2016 request was made by the applicant only thereafter the copy of complaint was supplied to the applicant.
11. Since matter was already investigated/enquired in prior point of time in the year 2006 and therefore applicant has prayed for dropping of the charges and closing of the departmental proceedings which was rejected vide communication dated 07.03.2012.
12. Thereafter, the applicant has filed an Original Application No. 284/2012 in which notices were issued to the respondents.
However, preliminary enquiry was held on 12.06.2012 in which the statement of Shaikh Mohammed Moin- Shaikh Mohd Ameen was recorded by the enquiry officer.
13. In the Original Application and reply to the enquiry officer's report, detailed facts have been mentioned by the applicant in respect of violation of principles of natural justice and non-
conduction of departmental enquiry by following prescribed procedure.
14. It is submitted that before the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority on various times through letters, the applicant has prayed for deferment of the enquiry proceedings on the ground of the pendency of the OA No. 284/2012. However, the Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 24 OA No. 72/2016 Enquiry Officer has proceeded the enquiry without giving any heed to the prayers made by the applicant and ultimately passed the punishment order for removal of service dated 13.10.2014.
15. It is contended that only on the basis of the statement of Shaikh Mohammed Moin in the preliminary enquiry dated 12.06.2012, the charges were held to be proved against the applicant.
16. The applicant was prevented from cross examination of the said witness during the enquiry proceedings. Further, the anonymous complaints were entertained by the department in violation of Office Memorandum dated 18.10.2013 of Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions.
17. It is vehemently submitted that once the enquiry was conducted in the year 2006 on the allegation of fictious experience certificate and no adverse orders have been passed against the applicant, then reopening of the same issue by issuing the charge sheet dated 03.01.2012 by conducting the departmental enquiry was illegal, arbitrary and unfair.
18. On merits, it is vehemently submitted that the applicant has worked with M/s Megh Dhanushya Printers, Mumbai only thereafter the certificate was issued by the proprietor of the said Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 25 OA No. 72/2016 firm. However, later on the said proprietor has turned around and submitted a letter dated 11.05.2005 and 17.10.2005 on the extraneous consideration to the department, whereas the experience certificate was issued in the year 2003.
19. It is submitted that in respect of the certificate of M/s Megh Dhanushya Printers, and the overlapping period in reply dated 15.11.2011 (A-13) in para 5 and 6, the applicant has submitted her explanation about the allegation of fictious certificate.
20. It is further contented that preliminary enquiry was conducted on 12.06.2012 thereafter, on 05.04.2013 (further enquiry after 10 months) except communications in respect of the fixing the date of the enquiry, no other witness was examined in the departmental proceedings. There was a violation of Rules 14/(18) of the CCS/CCA Rules and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report are perverse.
21. Even the reply submitted to the enquiry officer's report was not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority in proper perspective prior to the passing of the punishment order dated 13.10.2014.
22. Challenging the aforesaid punishment order, departmental appeal was submitted in detail by mentioning the entire factual Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 26 OA No. 72/2016 position and grounds of appeal in the appeal memo. However, the appeal of the applicant was rejected by the Appellate Authority without considering the facts and grounds in the appeal memo in proper perspective and without recording any proper findings. Therefore, impugned orders are unsustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed.
23. On the other hand, Shri. N.K. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently supported the impugned orders.
24. It is submitted that it is true that in earlier point of time the show cause notice was issued to the applicant to which the applicant has submitted an explanation, however, the case was never closed.
25. Further, looking to the confirmation order, it is clear that the services of the applicant was confirmed temporarily and no permanency order was issued to the applicant.
26. It is submitted that on the face of it, the experience certificate submitted by the applicant is fictious and therefore, with a view to provide full opportunity to the applicant, proceedings under Rule-
14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was initiated by issuing the charge sheet dated 03.01.2012.
Digitally signed by RashmiDN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 27 OA No. 72/2016
27. It is submitted that in the enquiry proceedings, the disciplinary authority has appointed the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, thereafter statement was recorded, Enquiry Officer submitted report to the disciplinary authority, which was supplied to the applicant. In turn the applicant has submitted representation in respect of enquiry report and thereafter, the punishment order has been passed taking note of the charge proved against the applicant.
28. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents while drawing out attention to Annexure R-3 which is the certificate issued by M/s Megh Dhanushya Printers, Mumbai in favour of the applicant in which period is mentioned from June 1998 to 2002, whereas the certificate issued by the Development Commissioner for Handloom, Jaipur (page no. 161), the period of 4 months is mentioned from 01.11.1998 to 28.02.1999.
29. He has submitted that looking to the period of both the certificates, it is apparent that the one person cannot remain present in the overlapping period in both institutes in two different cities of Mumbai and Jaipur simultaneously, and in fact, the person who has issued the certificate on behalf of M/s Megh Dhanushya Printers in enquiry categorically stated that no such certificate has been issued. Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 28 OA No. 72/2016
30. Under these circumstances, there is nothing remained to be proved against the applicant, but it can be safely concluded that the certificate of M/s Megh Dhanushya Printers (R-3) is fictious one and if the aforesaid period of 4 years is excluded for the purpose of experience of 5 years then as per the statutory Rules for appointment on the said post, it is clear that the applicant has no requisite certificate to be appointed on the post of Art Designer.
31. It is submitted that during the enquiry without there being any stay order in favour of the applicant in OA No. 284/2012, the applicant has participated in the departmental enquiry as per her own wish and therefore, she cannot contend that applicant was not provided an opportunity of cross examination of the statement of Sheikh Mohd.
Moin. It is submitted that due procedure of law has been followed in the departmental enquiry.
32. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 80 and in the case of State Bank of India and Another Vs. K.S. Vishwanath reported in (2022) 15 Supreme Court Cases 190 and the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Prabhu Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 29 OA No. 72/2016 Diwan Lute reported in 2017 SCC Online Bom 9468 and the order of CAT Mumbai Bench in OA No. 210/00241/2015 decided on 19.11.2019 in the case of Nagraj Nathu Borase Vs. Union of India & Ors., to contend in that in the departmental enquiry proceedings there is a limited scope of interference of the Tribunal and the Tribunal has no power to reappreciate the evidence available on the record and act as an Appellate Authority in respect of the orders passed by the Departmental Authorities. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the OA is liable to be dismissed.
33. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that in pursuance of the advertisement for filling of the post of Art Designer in the office of Development Commissioner for handlooms, the applicant has applied for the aforesaid post.
34. As per the recruitment rules for the aforesaid post, 5 years' experience certificate in the field of Textile Designing, or practical experience, or commercial art work was a mandatory condition. Format of the Application Form (Annexure A-4) filled by the applicant, serial no. 17 is in respect of the experience. In the said column, the applicant has claimed that she has worked with Megh Dhanushya Printers Block Print & Hand Printing (Textile), Mumbai for the period 1998-2002.
Digitally signed by RashmiDN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 30 OA No. 72/2016
35. After issuance of the appointment order on 03.09.2004, her appointment was withheld as per the intimation dated 10.02.2005.
However, thereafter, vide communication dated 16.08.2005, the applicant was allowed to join on the post of Art Designer and in fact applicant joined on the said post on 29.08.2005 in the Weavers Service Centre, West Zone, at Raigarh.
36. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.01.2006 was issued to the applicant to show cause why her services should not be cancelled for submission of alleged fictious certificate, to which reply was submitted on 29.01.2006 and thereafter letter dated 07.04.2008 was issued informing that the applicant has successfully completed 2 years of probation on 28.08.2007.
37. Thereafter, till 02.11.2011, there was no question raised in respect of fictious experience certificate. However, on 02.11.2011, the office of respondent no. 2 has issued memorandum on anonymous complaint and the applicant was called upon to submit copies of her original certificate including experience certificate, to which detailed explanation was given by the applicant on 15.11.2011 and after the said explanation, no order was passed but charge sheet dated 03.01.2012 was issued under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules.
Digitally signed by RashmiDN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 31 OA No. 72/2016
38. Thereafter, the applicant has filed an Original Application No. 284/2012 challenging the charge sheet. From the records, it appears that during the pendency of the aforesaid OA, the applicant has made request many times to the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority to defer the departmental proceedings. However, the Enquiry Officer has proceeded in the enquiry proceedings and passed the punishment order dated 13.10.2014.
39. Thereafter, the aforesaid OA No. 284/2012 was disposed of on 11.02.2015 by observing as under
"2. Today when the matter was taken up, she has submitted that the applicant has been removed from the service during the pendency of this OA, whereas the OA was filed challenging the charge-sheet issued to the applicant. Now that the applicant is removed form the service, the OA has become infructuous.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawing the OA. Prayer is granted.
4. The OA is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn."
40. From the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties at the one hand, it is the contention of the applicant that once the issue in respect of fictious certificate was considered by the department in the year 2006 and therefore, on the basis of anonymous complaint, the said issue was reopened through the charge sheet under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules dated 03.01.2012 was impermissible and during the enquiry proceedings except the statement of Sheikh Mohd. Moin, Digitally signed by Rashmi DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 32 OA No. 72/2016 no other witnesses have been examined, whereas the stand of the official respondents is that earlier enquiry held in 2006 was never closed and in the enquiry proceedings under Rule-14, due and proper opportunity was provided to the applicant, however, the applicant has failed to avail the said opportunity and cross examined the witness.
41. It is true that in OA No. 284/2012, there was no stay granted by this Tribunal. However, in the enquiry proceedings the charges are found to be proved and that too in preliminary enquiry on the basis of the statement of Sheikh Mohd. Moin only.
42. When, it is the contention of the applicant that during the enquiry due process was not followed and perverse findings were recorded, further, she has submitted a detailed explanation in respect of the experience certificate issued on behalf of M/s Megh Dhanushya Printers and for overlapping period then, therefore, if such points are raised by the applicant in her appeal memo by challenging the punishment order dated 13.10.2014 including the ground in respect of initiation of departmental enquiry on the basis of anonymous complaint, then it was obligatory on the part of the Appellate Authority to take into consideration all such factual and legal ground and record his own findings to affirm the order of Disciplinary Authority.
Digitally signed by RashmiDN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 33 OA No. 72/2016
43. However, looking to the appellate order dated 13.04.2015 (A-2), it is clear that upto para 7, the Appellate Authority recorded the facts in relation to departmental enquiry and para 8 & 9 recorded as under
"8. In her petition, the appellant has indicated that the charges levelled against her have not been probed into; that the inquiry has been conducted in an arbitrary manner and that there is total non- application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. However, the documents submitted by the appellant do not substantiate this.
9. After considering the matter in its totality, I am of the view that the appellant has failed to adduce any new evidence other than those which were placed and considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, I do not feel it appropriate to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The appeal is, accordingly, rejected and the order of the Disciplinary Authority stands."
44. Looking to the observations/findings recorded in para 8 and 9, it is clear that the order of the Appellate Authority is certainly non-
speaking one and without dealing with the contentions raised by the applicant in her appeal. While deciding the appeal, it was obligatory on the part of the authority to deal with the contentions factual/legal by the Appellate Authority.
45. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi and K.S. Vishwanath (supra) have categorically held that there is a limited scope of judicial review in respect of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal has no authority to reappreciate the evidence.
Digitally signed by RashmiDN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 34 OA No. 72/2016
46. However, whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the delinquent employee by following the due procedure of law prescribed under the Rules or not, can be looked into by the Tribunal in its power of judicial review and to that extent only, we have examined the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority.
47. Under these circumstances, the order dated 13.04.2015 is liable to be set aside and matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the applicant (Annexure A-38) dated 05.12.2014, afresh within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order in accordance with law.
48. With the aforesaid discussion, the OA is disposed of as per the directions indicated above.
Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No orders as to cost.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member(J) Member(A)
R.
Digitally signed by Rashmi
DN: C=IN, CN=Rashmi, O=Personal, ST=Delhi, postalCode= 110082, pseudonym=e43eb0e1e71d4e88b0ea71809694b4a7, Rashmi serialNumber= 5482fa3c129a1d4f404f610355a98ceb9582ace2c33499b071497 409a4527c20, telephoneNumber= bdfff08227607de07cc8a71f87733e1252492d43dbcae4331895b0 3a11e5f3ff, title=0779 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.17 16:45:12+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0