Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kuldeep Pakad vs Home Affairs on 17 July, 2025
1
C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A./3015/2024
M.A./1654/2025
Reserved on: 08.07.2025
Pronounced on: 17.07.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Kuldeep Pakad, Retd. IAS,
Aged about 63 years,
S/o Shri Johari Lal,
R/o Flat no.372, NTO-CGHS Ltd., Plot No. 3A, Sector 22,
Dwarka,
New Delhi-110077 ... Applicant
(Through Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The Joint Secretary (UTS-II)
Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi
3. The Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
5th Level, C-502, Delhi Secretariat,
IP Estate, New Delhi ...Respondents
(Through Shri Gyanendra Singh, for respondents 1 & 2
Shri Amit Anand, for respondent 3)
2
C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024
ORDER
By Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondents.
2. This OA was originally heard on 6.05.2025 and the order has been reserved on that date. While dictating the order certain queries came to the mind of the Bench and accordingly, the matter has been listed under the head 'For Being Spoken To' on 8.07.2025.
3. A query has been addressed to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether the applicant is in receipt of each of the documents annexed with the chargesheet.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he may not press the said contention at this stage, however, he would place challenge to the chargesheet on merits.
4. Factual Matrix 3 C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 4.1 The applicant, an officer of the Indian Administrative Service, 2008 Batch (AGMUT: 2008 cadre), was served with a memorandum dated 30.08.2020 (refer to page 280 of the OA).
The applicant duly responded to the memorandum, by seeking supply of certain documents, however, it is alleged by the applicant that the same were not provided to him. The applicant retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2020. Subsequent to his retirement, he was served with a charge sheet dated 03.05.2023. Aggrieved by the same the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) To quash and set aside the impugned Charge Memo No. 14033/05/2020.UTS-I dated 03.05.2023 (A-1) as well as order dated 08.04.2024 vide which I.O & P.O have been appointed.
(b) To declare the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant as illegal and unjustified and issue appropriate directions for granting all consequential benefits withheld on account of said disciplinary proceedings.
(c) To allow the OA with cost.
(d) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
5. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply. Applicant chose not to file rejoinder. 4
C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024
6. Submission by learned counsel for the applicant 6.1 There are 5 Articles of Charge (page 52 of the OA), each Article of Charge flows from one another. The primary charge against the applicant is, of abusing his official position by organizing a basic training camp in which the participating students were primarily from Delhi, as opposed to being from across India. The training program itself was called off by the Competent Authority therefore, the charge is misplaced. 6.2 An employee can be proceeded against for misconduct, only if there is a) violation of rules or guidelines, b) there is malafide intent or willful misconduct.
6.3 The learned counsel for the applicant draws strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Inspector Prem Chand vs. GNCTD, Civil Appeal No. 1815 of 2007, decided on 05.04.2007 paragraph 12, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has defined the term "misconduct." The charges leveled against the applicant do not satisfy any of the criteria laid down in the said definition of misconduct as recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned decision. 5
C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 6.4 The learned counsel for the applicant alleges malafide on
the part of one Mr. Rajeev Verma, the then Divisional Commissioner. The order dated 19.08.2019, placed at page 270 of the OA, would indicate, a total of 1,735 marshals were requisitioned from the Shahdara Zone alone. The committee in question was constituted by the applicant, page 273 of the OA, pursuant to the instructions issued by the respondents, and in compliance therewith, the necessary action was taken. 6.5 Referring to page 278 of the OA, the learned counsel avers that a circular was issued by the respondents directing the discontinuation of the deployment of civil defence volunteers, which had initially been requisitioned at the instance of the respondents themselves.
6.6 The communication dated 17.10.2019 would clearly substantiate the two contentions of the applicant i.e. (i) Sh. Rajeev Verma, Divisional Commissioner wanted to harass the applicant for different reasons (ii) the criteria of enrolment as mentioned in Civil Defence Act, 1968, Rules & Regulations there under was to be ignored to restrict the selection to specific political party /group. It is also evident from the same 6 C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 that earlier the Shahdara District was directed to provide 1735 CDVs, whereas by letter dated 17.10.2019, the same was reduced to 441. If by the communication dated 09.08.2019, only 441 CDVS were to be provided, the applicant would not have issued order dated 21.08.2019 to enroll more CDVs, meaning thereby, Sh. Rajeev Verma, Divisional Commissioner had deliberately mentioned the figure 1735, instead of 441. The said officer was aware of the fact that the Shahdara District did not have 1735 CDVS, therefore it would not be possible to provide such number and there would be requirement to enroll more CDVs. The applicant was transferred from aforesaid district and posted as Special Secretary (UD) by order dated 03.09.2019 (Annexure A-8). 6.7 To summarize, the applicant enrolled the candidates and constituted teams pursuant to the directions issued by the respondents. However, the program itself, was later withdrawn by the respondents, and therefore, no action was taken that could substantiate the allegations contained in the charge sheet. Therefore, it is a case of no evidence.
7. Submission by learned counsel for the Respondent No.1: 7
C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 7.1 Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent
No. 1, vehemently opposes the present OA. He draws attention to paragraph 4 of the counter reply, wherein it is stated that the Senior Staff Officer of the Directorate of Civil Defence issued Circular No. TA.35(463)/CD/Callout/2019/3027-3144 dated 09.08.2019, directing all IOs/Senior Instructors of Civil Defence to ensure wide publicity among the enrolled Civil Defence Volunteers regarding their callout duty as Marshals in DTC and Cluster Buses. In the meantime, a complaint was received by the respondents alleging irregularities in the recruitment of Civil Defence Volunteers. After a primarily inquiry, a detailed inquiry was conducted by the Revenue Department and the report was submitted on 20.09.2019 wherein the certain irregularities came into light which are:-
(a) the petitioner, the then DM/Controller Civil Defence, District Shahdara vide his office Order No.DM/Shahdara/1506.09 dated 17.08.2019 directed the Instructor (Civil Defence). (ICD), District Shahdara to organize a basic training camp for 449+1 Civil Defence Volunteers (CDVs) from 17.08.2019 to 21.08.2019 at East Delhi Municipal Cooperation's Primary School, Mandoli Extension, 8 C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 Shahdara. It was also instructed in the aforesaid Order that after completion of basic training certificate may be issued to CDVs (Annexure R-7).
(b) The basic training scheduled for the period 17.08.2019 to 21.08.2019 as issued by the applicant was not as per the approved training schedule released in advance by the Directorate of Civil Defence vide office Order No. 157, dated 25.03.2019. That as per office Order No.157, Directorate of Civil Defence allows minimum 10 CDVs and maximum 100 CDVs in each batch. However, in the instant camp all the 449 persons were called for training in two shifts. No formal approval to this effect was obtained by the applicant, the then DM/Controller of Civil Defence, District Shahdara from the Competent Authority (Annexure R-8).
(c) it was clearly mentioned by the Revenue Department/GNCTD in their letter dated 09.08.2019 addressed to all Controller Civil Defence that while callout for duty, priority shall be given to already enrolled Civil Defence Volunteers. However, the Petitioner/applicant, the then DM (Shahdara)/Controller (Civil Defence) in order to extend undue 9 C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 benefits to the private persons issued an Order dated 17.08.2019 enclosing a list of 449+1 persons directing therein to make them undergo the basis training.
(d) it is also revealed that out of 450 (449+1) CDVs, 149 applications for enrolment of CDVs were entered in the system at the Single Window Counter by the Dealing Assistants on 19.08.2019,20.08.2019, 21.08.2019, 23.08.2019 & 24.08.2019 in all three sub-divisions of District Shahdara. Thus, it is clear that 149 persons recently applied for CDVs that too after organizing of basic training camp (Annexure R-
9).
(e) no applications or any other documents pertaining to 149 applications were available with the concerned Sub-Divisions of District Shahdara. As per the dealing Assistants, all these offline applications and documents were taken back from them by some Sh. Jitender & Sh. Abhishek Meena on the instructions of the applicant, the then DM (Shahdara)/Controller of Civil Defence, Shahdara (Annexure R-10).
10
C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024
(f) The training certificates were issued only to 380 out of 450 (449+1) applicants, as out of 450 applicants, 21 names were duplicates and 49 applicants did not turn up for basic training (Annexure R-11).
(g) as per extant Standing Order No.TA.35(77)/CD/2011/5632.45 dated 18.03.2015, any
interested person fulfilling the eligibility criteria can apply in Form 'A' and submit the same alongwith copies of self-attested documents such as 04 passport size photographs, any residential proof, copies of proof of educational qualification and NOC from employer. After submission of the application, police verification of the applicant is carried out. After Police verification, the applicant is enrolled as a volunteer in Civil Defence for 3 years and he is provided with a membership certificate in Form 'C'. Once the enrolment process is over, all enrolled CDVs have to undergo a basic training course within a period of 90 days from the date of enrolment. This mandatory training is a pre-requisite for callout of Civil Defence Volunteers (CDVs.) (Annexure R-12). 11
C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024
(h) the applicant, the then DM/Controller Civil Defence (Shahdara) issued an Order F.No.PS/DM/SHAH/2019/1411dated 08.08.2019 addressed to Dy. Controller Civil Defence/SDMS stating that Police verification of the applicant for CDVs should be made post- enrolment of the applicant and if the police verification report is later found to be adverse, the CDV registration should be cancelled immediately. Therefore, all the Dy. Controller (Civil Defence)/SDMs of the Sub-Div. Shahdara, Seemapuri, VivekVihar were directed to allow the enrolment registration of the volunteers of their own CDVs without, police verification at the preliminary stage (Annexure R-13).
(i) the aforesaid order is in contravention of Order No.TA. 35(77)/CD/2011/5632-45 dated 18.03.2015 issued by Secretary (Revenue)-cum-Divisional Commissioner wherein at point No. 8. it has been mentioned that "Police Verification:
Applicant who is found otherwise fit will be eligible for enrolment as a Civil Defence volunteer after verification of his character and antecedent by police. Anyone with a criminal background and doubtful integrity would not be enrolled as a 12 C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 member of this organization under any circumstances." (Annexure R-14)
(j) the applicant had issued address verification certificates on his official letterhead to some persons for updating their Aadhar numbers. Three such verifications were issued in respect of Sh Rishikesh Meena (S. no. 262), Sh. Bhagwan Singh Meena (S.No. 368) and Sh. Lakhi Ram Meena (S.no.
431) who also figured in the list of "willing persons" asked to undergo training by the DM (Shahdara) for being enrolled in Civil Defence without following due process. This shows personal involvement/interest of the applicant (Annexure R-
15).
(k) Sh. Shakti Bangar, OIC (CTB), District Shahdara, has informed that as per directions of the applicant, the then DM (Shahdara)/Controller Civil Defence District Shahdara, spent Rs. 39,000/-(Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Only) on making various preparations for the conduct of selection process for the Marshals. Even though, the selection process was abandoned, in compliance with the directions of the higher authorities, advance payment had already been made to the 13 C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 vendors, to the tune of Rs. 39,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Only). This caused loss to the tune of Rs.39,000/-
to the Govt. (Annexure R-16).
7.2 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the allegations that came to light, the applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 05.05.2023. The scope of judicial review concerning a charge sheet is limited to examining, whether the charge sheet was issued without authority, which is not the case in the present matter. He relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 wherein the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters has been clearly delineated. He submits that none of the grounds outlined by the Hon'bleApex Court in the aforesaid judgment, have been invoked or substantiated by the applicant. 7.3 The applicant has been provided each of the relied upon documents as mentioned in the charge sheet, along with the charge sheet.
8. Submission by learned counsel for the respondent No.3 14 C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 8.1 Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, adopts the submissions made by Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Additionally, he submits that mala fides have been alleged against Shri Rajeev Verma, who has not been arrayed as a respondent in the present OA. He contends, mala fide alleged, by the applicant does not amount to malice in law, as specific instances have been cited by the applicant, and therefore, in absence of Shri Rajeev Verma being made a party, the allegation of mala fide cannot be sustained. He draws attention to the paragraph 16 of the judgment relied upon the learned counsel for the applicant, and submits that it is per incuriam, asserting that the Hon'ble Apex Court recorded its observations in paragraph 16 in the context of the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. He also refers to paragraph 8 of the same judgment, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court defined the legal scope under which the charge sheet in the present case falls.
9. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charges themselves are vague, as the incident alleged in the charge sheet never took place. He submits that the 15 C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 charges are based on mere presumptions, as the alleged actions mentioned in the charge sheet did not occur (refer to Ground C of the OA). The charge sheet was issued without proper application of mind.
10. Analysis 10.1 It remains trite that the scope of judicial review of the disciplinary proceedings by the Court is ordinarily confined to the decision making process and does not extend to the decision itself.
The principles of judicial review of administrative action have been succinctly enunciated by the Apex Court in catena of judgments. The often cited case, though pertains to the class of disciplinary cases, is the B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India,(1995) 6 SCC 749. The Hon'ble Apex Court held:
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry 16 C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act or of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or whether the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case".
10.2 The Supreme Court in its Judgment in Civil Appeal No.1763-1764 of 2002, titled The State of Karnataka V/s Umesh held:
"17. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re- appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the findings of misconduct has been arrived at the course of a disciplinary inquiry.
The court in exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rule of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (iv) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. 17
C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 This has beenreiterated by the Apex court in Moni Shankar v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2008)1 SCC(L&S)-819. The procedural fairness in conducting the departmental proceeding is a right of an employee. However, in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also pleased to observe that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Administrative Tribunals are to determine whether relevant evidences were taken into consideration and irrelevant evidences are excluded."
10.3 The Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. vs P. Gunasekaran (supra), held:
"Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;18
C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
10.4 The above principles have been reiterated by the Apex Court in The State of Karnataka vs N. Gangaraj in Civil Appeal No. 8071 of 2014 decided on 14 February, 2020. 10.5 Against the backdrop of settled law in Disciplinary Proceedings, we now turn to the present case. The thrust of submissions by the learned counsel for the applicant is that 19 C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 the issuance of the charge sheet and proceeding further to hold the DE proceedings suffers from:
(i) malafide on the part of respondents; and
(ii) no prime facie evidence of any wrong doing or "misconduct" on the part of the applicant.
10.6 In his submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant refers to the alleged bias and malafide on the part of the one Mr. Rajeev Verma, the then Divisional Commissioner who, it is alleged by the applicant that, wanted to harass the applicant for reasons best known to him. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has fairly submitted that the applicant has not arrayed Mr. Verma as party though it has been specifically alleged bias and malafide on his part. We agree with this contention by the learned counsel that fair play warrants that when you specifically name a person in your application and you rely on his conduct in support of your grounds, you should array him as one of the necessary parties to afford an opportunity to defend himself and also provide useful insight into the alleged specifics of bias and malafide. 20
C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 10.7 In the instant case, there was a preliminary enquiry and the matter was also referred to the CVC for their advice. Based on these inputs, the respondents initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. There is no allegation of bias against the CVC and the superior authorities who finally took decision to initiate charge sheet against the applicant. Hence, this Tribunal is unable to accept the assertion that the respondents were biased against the applicant and acted with malafide intention, by issuing the charge sheet. 10.8 The learned counsel for the applicant has emphasized that there is a-priori no evidence of "misconduct" on the part of the applicant. He cited the judgment of the Apex court in Inspector Prem Chand (supra) where in the Apex Court has cited its previous judgement in Union of India vs J. Ahmad (1979) 2 SCC 286 where in it was held that:
"11. Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct (see Pierce v. Foster, 17 Q.B. 536, 542). A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers, 1959 1 WLR
698)]. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Superintendent, 21 C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024 Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, (61 Bom LR 1596), and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza (10 Guj LR 23). The High Court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:
"Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct."
11. Now the question arises : Has the applicant established that a-priori there is no ill motive, no acts of negligence, no errors of judgment or mistake on his part. We do not find any such a priori substantiation. The Disciplinary Proceedings are exactly intended to find out such misconduct. Without going into the rigors of the DE proceedings, it would be preposterous to come to conclusion that there is no misconduct. More over the assertion of the learned counsel for the applicant in his rejoinder submission that no such incident (training of CVDs) took place has been stoutly contradicted by the learned counsel for the respondents in his submission citing the detailed chronology of events and substantiation with official records like memos and instructions. At this stage it would not be appropriate to accept the contention of either of the parties. Let a fair enquiry establish whether there was misconduct or not.
22
C-3/Item-2 OA-3015/2024
12. Conclusion
In view of the above, we find that at this stage there is no scope for judicial intervention in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents against the applicant. The OA lacks merit and hence is dismissed.
No order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dkm/