Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Sanjay Bisht vs Employees Providend Fund Organisation ... on 13 January, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A.No.489/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
O.A. No.489/2024
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
Reserved On: 10.12.2025
Pronounced On:13.01.2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. Shri Sanjay Bisht
Son of Shri Santan Singh Bisht,
Aged 59 years, Serving as Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner -I in the office of the respondents,
Residing at Flat No. A-406, Sumey Apartments,
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380013.
.....Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. M.S. Trivedi)
Versus
1. The Union of India through
The Chairman,
Central Board of Trustees,
Employees Provident Fund,
(Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India),
Employees Provident Fund Head Office,
Shram Shakti Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
O/o CPFC,
Employees Provident Fund Head Office,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Bhikhaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066.
3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
O/o RPFC, Gujarat Circle,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Nr. Income Tax Circle,
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009.
2026.01.15
PRATIK VYAS
11:57:46+05'30'
:: 2 :: O.A.No.489/2024
......................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. A.V. Nair)
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Dr.Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. In the instant OA, the applicant being aggrieved with Charge Memorandum dated 25.05.2021 issued under Rule 10 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 whereby it was alleged that the applicant delayed in processing the cases of disciplinary proceedings and Memorandum dated 30.09.2024 to the applicant in the form of additional/further IO report, after receipt of the reply of the applicant dated 28.02.2023 in response to Inquiry Officer report dated 15.09.2022, has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
"8. RELIEFS SOUGHT:
The applicant, therefore, pray as under :-
(a) That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this application.
(b) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold / declare that impugned ex- facie, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional decision / action on the part of the respondents regarding issuance of Charge Memorandum dated 25.05.2021 under Rule 10 of The issued EPF Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules), 1971 alleging misconduct of administrative delay in processing the cases of disciplinary proceedings, as well as the illegal, arbitrary and against the settled legal position, the action on the part of the respondents regarding issuance of memorandum dtd. applicant in a form of Additional / further 10's report, after receipt of reply / representation dtd. 28/2/2023 in response to 10 report dtd.
15/9/2022, supplied / provided to the applicant on 02/02/2023 by 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 3 :: O.A.No.489/2024 the Disciplinary Authority taking a decision to accept the IO's report dtd. 15/9/2022 is non-est in the eyes of law.
(c) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be and pleased to quash and set-aside impugned arbitrary illegal, ex-facie, unconstitutional decision / action on the part of the respondents regarding issuance of Charge Memorandum dated 25.05.2021 issued under Rule 10 of The EPF Staff (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules), 1971 alleging misconduct of administrative delay in processing the cases disciplinary proceedings, as well as the of illegal, arbitrary and against the settled legal position, the action on the part of the respondents issuance regarding of memorandum dtd. 30/9/2024 to the applicant in a form of Additional / further IO's report, after receipt of reply / representation dtd. 28/2/2023 in response to IO report dtd. 15/9/2022, supplied / provided to the applicant on 02/02/2023 by the Disciplinary Authority taking a decision to accept the IO's report dtd. 15/9/2022.
(d) Any other order or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in favour of the applicant.
(e) Costs of the Original Application be allowed in favour of the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 It was submitted that the applicant after getting selected through UPSC joined the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on 26.03.1999 and subsequently he was promoted to the post of Regional PF Commissioner II on 08.01.2004 and further promoted to the post of Regional PF Commissioner-I on 22.06.2015.
2.2 It was submitted that while the applicant was working as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, he was served with 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 4 :: O.A.No.489/2024 impugned Charge Memorandum No. Vig.XIV(14)2015/e-file/1033 dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure A/1) under Rule 10 of EPF Staff (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1971 whereby it was alleged as under:-
Article-I That the said Shri Sanjay Bisht, Regional P.F. Commissioner-I while functioning as such in HRM including AVS/DAR Section of Head Office, EPFO, New Delhi during the period 2015 to 2019 had grossly failed to accomplish the task in a reasonable time-bound manner which was dealt in the file bearing No.HR/AVS/II/NZ/170/SKS/2015/Pt.1 with regard to sensitive matter of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against 4 erring officials in respect of whom approval of the competent authority for the same was communicated by the Vigilance wing vide U.O Note No. Vig.XIV(07)2011/3795 dated 21.12.2015 by delaying the matter for about 13 months. Further, despite several correspondences/reminders to HRM/AVS from Vigilance Wing as well as MoL&E, Shri Sanjay Bisht, being RPFC-I (HRM), had also failed to pursue/coordinate the sensitive matter with ACC (HRM) to whom the said file was escalated by him on 17.11.2016 until the said file was again put up to him by RPFC-II on 31.08.2018, after receiving back the file to AVS section on 23.07.2018 devoid of comments/remarks of ACC (HRM).
By the aforesaid act of omission and commission, Shri Sanjay Bisht, the then RPFC-I (HRM/AVS), Head Office, has displayed a lackadaisical attitude and failed to maintain discipline in the discharge of his duty to implement the lawful orders duly communicated to him. Thus, he had failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of Central Board Trustees, thereby violated Rules 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(xix) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which mutatis mutandis 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 5 :: O.A.No.489/2024 applicable to him by the virtue of Regulation 27 of EPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1962 and Regulation 18 and 22 of the EPF (Officers and Employees Conditions of Services) Regulation, 2008.
ARTICLE-II That the said Shri Sanjay Bisht, Regional P.F. Commissioner-I while functioning as such in AVS /DAR wing of Head Office, EPFO, New Delhi during the period 2015 to 2019 had wilfully delayed the sensitive matter of initiation disciplinary action against erring officers which ultimately led to the regular promotion to the post of APFCs of Shri B.K. Sinha, EO/AO & Shri Sunil Kumar EO/AO on 12.04.2017 and Shri Divya Jyoti, EO/AO on 31.08.2017 despite having knowledge of the approval granted by the Competent Authority for initiation of disciplinary action against them as communicated by the Vigilance wing vide UO Note No. Vig.XIV(07)2011/3795 dated 21.12.2015.
By the aforesaid act of omission and commission, Shri Sanjay Bisht, the then RPFC-I (HRM & AVS), Head Office, has displayed lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of Central Board Trustees in violation of Rules 3 (1) (ii), 3 (1) (iii) and 3 (1) (XIX) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the employees of EPFO by virtue of Regulations 18 & 22 of EPF (Officers & Employees' Conditions of Services) Regulations, 2008.
2.3 The applicant submitted that the respondents have issued the impugned charge memorandum dated 25.05.2021 alleging misconduct of the incident occurred during the period 2015 to 2019 i.e. after a period of more than six years. The said action of the 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 6 :: O.A.No.489/2024 respondents without any valid or justified reasons is not tenable in the eyes of the law.
2.4 After receipt of the Charge Memorandum dated 25.05.2021, the applicant submitted a detailed, self explanatory reply to the Disciplinary Authority on 16.07.2021 and denied the charges levelled against him vide charge memorandum dated 25.05.2021 and requested the Disciplinary Authority to give him an opportunity to explain his defense in person also (Annexure A/3 refer).
2.5 The applicant submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has failed to take note of the specific averment made by him in his reply that the vigilance wing of the Head Office, EPFO on investigation decided that allegations do not involve vigilance angle against four officers namely Sh. Rajni Kant Sinha APFC, Sh. B.K. Sinha APFC, Sh. Sunil Kumar EO/AO and Sh. Divya Jyoti, EO/AO.
The applicant submitted that in spite of the findings of the vigilance wing that vigilance angle was not involved, the vigilance wing forwarded a note dated 21.12.2015 to the RPFC-I (HRM) for issuance of charge memorandum/initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the aforementioned four officers and the applicant received the said note on 21.12.2015.
2.6 The applicant also contended that with the approval of the Additional CPFC vide letter dated 16.01.2019 relevant files were requested from the Patna Office which were received by the Section Officer 07.02.2019. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Vigilance Wing and the applicant submitted the file for initiation of disciplinary proceedings on 17.11.2016 to his next senior officer i.e. ACPFC and the same remained pending with the ACC till 23.07.2018 i.e. till his transfer and the ACC on his transfer sent the file to the AVS 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 7 :: O.A.No.489/2024 Section without any remarks. Therefore, it is evident that the applicant was not at all responsible for any alleged delay in processing the file.
2.7 Further, the applicant contended that the Disciplinary Authority is required to take independent objective decision without any external influence. However, in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority had taken a decision on the basis of influence and recommendation of the CVC.
2.8 The Disciplinary Authority had decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant under Rule 12 EPF Staff (CCS) Rules, 1971 i.e. for "Minor Penalty" and forwarded the proposal to CVC for concurrence. However, the CVC vide Office Memorandum dated 08.03.2021 disagreed with the initiation of minor penalty proceedings and advised the Disciplinary Authority to initiate Major Penalty proceedings against the applicant (Annexure A/4).
Thereafter, the respondents without application of judicious mind to the facts of the case and without assigning any reason for changing the minor penalty proceedings to major penalty proceedings under the external influence issued charge memorandum dated 25.05.2021 under Rule 10 of EPF Staff (CCA) Rules 1971 for initiation of Major Penalty proceedings against the applicant, which was illegal, arbitrary and non-est in the eyes of law.
2.9 The applicant argued that the Disciplinary Authority without considering the contents of the reply dated 16.07.2021, appointed the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to hold an inquiry against the applicant and on conclusion of the same, the Inquiry Officer without following the laid down procedure, submitted his report on 15.09.2022 without closing the inquiry proceedings. In this regard, 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 8 :: O.A.No.489/2024 the applicant by referring the Daily Order Sheet No. 22 wherein it was mentioned that "The General Examination (GE) of the Charged Officer, Shri Sanjay Bisht, RPFC-I by the IA was conducted and completed today. The hearing was adjourned with above observation of the IA, he was expecting that the next date of hearing would be given by the Inquiry Officer and he would get an opportunity to put forward his case in the next hearing. Thus, the action on the part of the respondents is in violation of the settled principle of natural justice.
2.10 The applicant by referring the IO report dated 15.09.2022 submitted that the Inquiry Officer directed the Presenting Officer to submit his written brief with a copy to Charged Officer, but, it was an admitted position that the Presenting Officer had not submitted any prosecution brief. Meaning thereby that the prosecution had not proved the charges alleged against the applicant and the Inquiry Officer acted in a dual role of complainant and investigating agency and held the charges proved which is contrary to the settled legal position.
Even, the Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the Inquiry Officer Report dated 15.09.2022 ignored the said fact and agreed with the Inquiry Officer report dated 15.09.2022 and submitted the same to the applicant.
2.11 After receipt of the Inquiry Officer Report dated 15.09.2022, the applicant submitted reply to the Disciplinary Authority on 28.02.2023 and after narrating various apparent lapses in the inquiry proceedings conducted against him as referred herein above, he requested the Disciplinary Authority to reject the findings of the IO. Further, he also requested the Disciplinary Authority to allow him to submit written statement of Defense on both the Articles of Charge 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 9 :: O.A.No.489/2024 based on the documents submitted during the course of inquiry which were part of the proceedings (Annexure A/6 refer).
2.12 However, the Disciplinary Authority without considering the same invited additional/ further IO Report vide impugned Memorandum dated 30.09.2024 wherein it was stated that on receipt of the Inquiry Report dated 03.09.2023 whereby the charges levelled against the applicant stands proved, the Disciplinary Authority has taken a tentative view to accept the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the Charged Officer was given an opportunity to represent on the tentative decision of the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days failing which, further action shall be taken against him as per rules. Hence, this OA.
3. In support of the prayer sought in the OA, Mr. M.S. Trivedi counsel for the applicant mainly argued as under:-
3.1 By referring the content of communication dated 19.05.2023 made to the Inquiry Officer by the Regional P.F. Commissioner-I (Vigilance), the applicant submitted that in the said communication it was clearly stated that the Charged Officer vide representation dated 28.02.2023 submitted that the IA ignored the 53 defence documents and depositions of the defence witnesses while drawing his findings and by not being allowed to submit defence brief, he was deprieved of the opportunity to submit written defence brief on the evidence adduced by him.
3.2 Further, the applicant argued that on last proceedings dated 06.06.2022, the IA did not indicate that he was closing the hearing and he even did not call for oral arguments from either side for written brief and as there was no oral arguments, the written brief 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 10 :: O.A.No.489/2024 was the only opportunity for the charged officer to put forth his contention. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant by referring the communication dated 19.05.2023 submitted that the Inquiry Officer had failed to follow EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 on written briefs Rule 10 (19) which reads as under:-
"The inquiring authority may after the completion of the production of the evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed and the employee or permit them to file written briefs of their respective cases, if they so desire."
3.3 Learned counsel for the applicant argued that as per provisions of Rule 11 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971, after perusal of the Inquiry Officer's Report and arriving at conclusion to agree with the IO's Report and after inviting reply of the Charged Officer, it is not open for the Disciplinary Authority to take contrary view. In the present case, the action of the respondents to invite fresh/ second Inquiry Report from the IO, in view of the communication dated 19.05.2023 was illegal, arbitrary and non-est in the eye of law.
3.4 Learned counsel for the applicant by referring the communication dated 21.05.2023 addressed to the Presenting Officer submitted that the DA after relying on the communication dated 19.05.2023 requested the PO to submit his brief and thereafter called for additional/ further IO Report which is not tenable.
3.5 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the provisions of EPF Staff (CCA) Rules 1971 are para material similar to the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and therefore, the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 54/2019 dated 18.09.2020 is applicable in the case of the applicant herein as vide the said order, this Tribunal had decided the query that after accepting the findings 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 11 :: O.A.No.489/2024 of the Inquiry Officer and having chosen not to offer any disagreement to the same, whether the disciplinary authority can still order for further inquiry remitting the matter back to the inquiry officer merely on the ground that certain deficiencies in the Inquiry Report were pointed out by the CVC while returning the proposal for tendering its second stage advice and quashed and set aside the impugned order therein.
3.6 Thus, in view of the above grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the OA has merit and accordingly, the same may be allowed.
4. On receipt of the notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply. Advocate Ms. R.R. Patel by referring the reply argued as under:-
4.1 That the action of the applicant to approach this Tribunal, at this stage of the pending inquiry which was initiated vide Charge Memorandum dated 25.05.2021 merely on the ground that subsequent memorandum dated 30.09.2024 was issued which was a mere communication regarding the tentative view taken by the DA to accept the Inquiry Report dated 03.09.2023 and also the fact that the said memorandum dated 30.09.2024 was issued with sole intent to grant an opportunity to the applicant to respond to the findings of the IO Report dated 03.09.2023 for adherence of principle of natural justice.
4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the EPFO Vigilance communicated the approval of the Competent Authority for initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against Shri. Rajinikant Sinha-
APFC, Shri. B.K. Sinha-APFC, Shri Divya Jyoti Enforcement 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 12 :: O.A.No.489/2024 Officer/Area Enforcement Officer and Shri Sunil Kumar-Enforcement Officer vide UO Note. Vig.XIV (07)2011/3795 dated 21.12.2015 to the applicant herein, who was in-charge of the RPFC-I (HRM), Head Office, EPFO New Delhi for issuance of Charge Memorandum/ initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the said UO note dated 21.12.2015 was put up by Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, the then Assistant in the File No. HR/AVS/II/NZ/170/SKS/2015/Pt.I on 20.05.2016 with the applicant herein, the then RPFC-I, HRM. Thereafter, the applicant processed the said file on 17.11.2016 after a period of six months without any remarks which clearly demonstrates his lackadaisical attitude and failure in maintaining devotion to duty.
4.3 It was submitted that on 21.08.2018, SO, HRM/AVS, Head Office noted at 39/N that "File received back from ACC(HRM), Head Office after transfer of ACC (HRM) to ACC (ASD) without comments/direction. Further, it was submitted that that RPFC-I Vigilance Head Office, has sent multiple correspondence/reminders with regard to PIDR complaint against Shri S.K. Singh, RPFC-II, Shri. R.K. Sinha, APFC, Shri. B.K. Sinha, APFC, Shri Sunil Kumar, EO/AO and Ms. Divya Jyoti, EO/AO, the said noting was put up to the then RPFC-I (HRM/AVS), Shri Sanjay Bisht (i.e. the applicant herein) on 31.08.2018 and on 24.12.2018 i.e. after lapse of about four months it was processed by him with remarks at 41/N to 42/N whereby he sought permission to call original file from Patna and further he added that thereafter, draft charge memorandum would be prepared in respect of 4 serving officials in time bound manner.
It was submitted that after Ms. Karuna Chauhan, SO, Head Office, on 15.03.2019 escalating the file to Higher authorities stated that file relating to case are available in AVS, Head Office, only File No. 44 was not received in AVS, neither from vigilance wing nor from 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 13 :: O.A.No.489/2024 RO, Patna. Subject matter was dealt by other dealing hand in AVS which caused confusion regarding non-receipts of files in AVS which was regretted for delay in subject matter.
Subsequently, after lapse of about three months, on 22.06.2019, the applicant herein submitted at Para-2 and 5 of the file noting Page No. 47/N to 48/N that the matter was earlier submitted on file vide note 36/N-38/N. Thereafter, there was no progress and there was no indication whether the original files were called by the Vigilance Wing from RO, Patna. As may be seen from the note submitted now that the files which were seized by the Vigilance Wing have been located in AVS Section of 45 establishments".
4.4 In this regard, the respondents submitted that the said noting dated 24.12.2018 was an afterthought and an attempt to justify the inordinate delay caused on his part, in dealing with sensitive matter of disciplinary action, as nothing was recorded in his note dated 17.11.2016 which showed that he inquired with his subordinate officer/officials about the matter and he should have questioned the Vigilance Wing for not forwarding the relevant files along with their U.O. Note dated 21.12.2015. Therefore, it is evident that there is delay of 13 months on the part of the applicant to accomplish the task of a sensitive matter despite several correspondence/ reminders to HRM/AVS from Vigilance Wing as well as MoL & E. Therefore, after his failure to act with sincerely with matter related to initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the respondents have rightly issued the Charge Memorandum dated 25.05.2021 to the applicant herein.
4.5 It was submitted that as the applicant denied the charges levelled against him vide representation dated 16.07.2021, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed IO and PO as per Rule 10 (5) of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971.
2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 14 :: O.A.No.489/2024 4.6 Further, it was submitted that due to delay of 13 months on the part of the applicant in processing the file for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against four erring officers resulted in lingering of the said matter which is detrimental to the due process of administration and also resulted in promotion of the said erring officials. It was submitted that even though 45 original files relevant to the subject matter were forwarded by the Vigilance Wing vide U.O. Note dated 21.12.2015 to HRM/AVS, Head Office, but the applicant misguided the higher officials that relevant compliance files were required to be called from RO, Patna on the pretext that relevant files were intentionally not made available by Vigilance Wing on time and thereby delay was caused in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against four erring officials.
4.7 Further, the respondents relied on the Section 8(1) of the CVC Act, 2003 which stipulates that "To tender advice to the Central Government, Corporation established by or under any central act government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the central government on such matter as may be referred to it by the government, said government companies societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the central government or otherwise". Therefore, the averment of the applicant that action of the respondents to seek advice from the CVC before initiation of disciplinary proceedings is not tenable as the same was as per extant rules. Further, it was submitted that the Disciplinary Authority had acted independently and decided to initiate major penalty proceedings against the applicant.
4.8 It was contended that initially the IO submitted the Inquiry Report dated 15.09.2022 without obtaining written representation of 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 15 :: O.A.No.489/2024 the Presenting Officer, after completion of production of evidence and written brief of the Charged Officer and the Disciplinary Authority tentatively accepted the IO Report dated 15.09.2022 and as the applicant raised the objection for non-grant of opportunity to submit his representation with the IO and requested the Disciplinary Authority not to accept the Inquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority returned the initial inquiry report dated 15.09.2022 to the IO and directed him to submit a fresh inquiry report by restarting the inquiry proceedings afresh from the stage of submission of PO's brief.
Subsequently, the Inquiry Officer after considering the Presenting Officer's brief and Charged Officer's brief submitted Inquiry Report dated 03.09.2023 and only thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority had tentatively accepted the Inquiry Report dated 03.09.2023. Hence, the Disciplinary Authority, at all stages adhered to the principle of natural justice and acted in the independent and impartial manner.
5. The applicant had also filed the rejoinder. Besides reiterating the averments made in the OA, denied the averments made by the respondents in the reply and additionally submitted as under:-
5.1 That from issuance of charge memorandum dated 25.05.2021 to submission of additional inquiry report dated 03.09.2023 which was communicated to the applicant vide memorandum dated 30.09.2024, the Inquiry has been inordinately delayed for more than three years and this delay in the inquiry had adversely impacted the career of the applicant as he was eligible for placement in the NFSG w.e.f. 01.01.2017 which was not granted to him on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending against him.
In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prem 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 16 :: O.A.No.489/2024 Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr in Civil Appeal No. 958/2010 wherein it was observed that disciplinary proceedings have to be generally completed within six months and at any rate not beyond one year.
6. In response to the rejoinder filed by the applicant the respondents have also filed the sur-rejoinder and denied the averments made by the applicant in the rejoinder. The respondents relied on order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3935/2013 dated 26.04.2013 wherein it was held that the Court/Tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental inquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is de hors the limitation of judicial review. In the event that the Court/Tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet or show cause-notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. It is an admitted fact that that the applicant while serving as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I was served with impugned Charge Memorandum No. Vig.XIV(14)2015/e-file/1033 dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure A/1) under Rule 10 of EPF Staff (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1970 whereby it was alleged that while serving as RPFC-I in HRM including AVS/DAR Section of Head Office, EPFO, New Delhi during the period 2015 to 2019 had grossly failed to accomplish the task in a reasonable time-bound manner which was dealt through the file bearing No.HR/AVS/II/NZ/170/SKS/2015/Pt.1 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 17 :: O.A.No.489/2024 with regard to sensitive matter of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against 4 erring officials in respect of whom approval of the competent authority for the same as communicated by the Vigilance wing vide U.O Note No. Vig.XIV(07)2011/3795 dated 21.12.2015 by delaying the matter for about 13 months. Further, despite several correspondences/reminders to HRM/AVS from Vigilance Wing as well as MoL&E, Shri Sanjay Bisht, being RPFC-I (HRM), had also failed to pursue/coordinate the sensitive matter with ACC (HRM) to whom the said file was escalated by him on 17.11.2016 until the said file was again put up to him by RPFC-II on 31.08.2018, after receiving back the file to AVS section on 23.07.2018 devoid of comments/remarks of ACC (HRM).By the aforesaid act of omission and commission, Shri Sanjay Bisht, the then RPFC-I (HRM/AVS), Head Office, had displayed a lackadaisical attitude and failed to maintain discipline in the discharge of his duty to implement the lawful orders duly communicated to him. Thus, he had failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of Central Board Trustees, thereby violated Rules 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(xix) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which mutatis mutandis applicable to him by the virtue of Regulation 27 of EPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1962 and Regulation 18 and 22 of the EPF (Officers and Employees Conditions of Services) Regulation, 2008 and while serving as, Regional P.F. Commissioner-I in AVS /DAR wing of Head Office, EPFO, New Delhi during the period 2015 to 2019 had wilfully delayed the sensitive matter of initiation disciplinary action against erring officers which ultimately led to the regular promotion to the post of APFCs of Shri B.K. Sinha, EO/AO & Shri Sunil Kumar EO/AO on 12.04.2017 and Shri Divya Jyoti, EO/AO on 31.08.2017 despite having knowledge of the approval granted by the Competent Authority for initiation of disciplinary action against them as communicated by the Vigilance wing vide UO Note No. 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 18 :: O.A.No.489/2024 Vig.XIV(07)2011/3795 dated 21.12.2015.By the aforesaid act of omission and commission, Shri Sanjay Bisht, the then RPFC-I (HRM & AVS), Head Office, has displayed lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of Central Board Trustees in violation of Rules 3 (1) (ii) and 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which are mutatis mutandis applicable to the employees of EPFO by virtue of Regulations 18 & 22 of EPF (Officers & Employees' Conditions of Services) Regulations, 2008.
8.2 It is also evident that after receipt of the Charge Memorandum dated 25.05.2021, the applicant submitted a detailed reply to the Disciplinary Authority on 16.07.2021 and denied the charges levelled against him vide charge memorandum dated 25.05.2021.
8.3 The Disciplinary Authority after receipt of the reply of the applicant dated 16.07.2021 appointed the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to hold an inquiry against the applicant. Thereafter, on conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.09.2022 which was communicated to the applicant vide memorandum dated 02.02.2023. In response to it, the Charged Officer i.e. the applicant herein submitted his defence on 28.02.2023.
8.4 It is also a fact that vide his defence dated 28.02.2023, the applicant raised certain objections to the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer in conducting the inquiry to the effect that the last proceedings recorded by the IO on 06.06.2022 did not indicate that the Inquiry was closed and the IO required to direct the PO to submit his written brief and subsequent to it, the CO would have been given the opportunity to submit his written statement of defence on the evidence adduced to him.
2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 19 :: O.A.No.489/2024 8.5 It is a fact that thereafter, the IO directed to Presenting Officer to submit his brief which was received by the applicant on 04.06.2023 and on receipt of it, the applicant submitted his written brief in defence vide letter dated 22.07.2023 and after considering the Presenting Officer's brief and Charged Officer's brief, the IO submitted Inquiry Report dated 03.09.2023 in the form of additional/ further IO report.
9. At this stage, the applicant submitted that the decision on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to again invite the additional report from the IO is contrary to the provisions laid down in Rule 10 and 11 of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 as it was mandatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to give his disagreement note, however, in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority had tentatively accepted the Inquiry Report.
10. As far as the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 54/2019 dated 18.09.2020 is concerned which was relied upon by the applicant, we are of the considered view that facts and circumstances of the said case are different from the present case. As in the aforesaid case, the IO had submitted report wherein he had held charges as not proved or the inquiry has finding in favour of the delinquent officer. In that case the DA without his disagreement note sought second inquiry report whereas in the present case the IO held charges proved and there were certain procedural lapses on the part of the IA which were got correct after the objection raised by the applicant herein which in our considered view was appropriate decision of the Disciplinary Authority.
11. At this stage, it is profitable to mention that by referring catena of judgments on the point of scope of judicial review by the 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 20 :: O.A.No.489/2024 Courts/Tribunals, the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 :
1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under:
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
11.1 In another judgment rendered by the Three Judge Bench in the case of SBI vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612: (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 457, by referring the law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and catena of other judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority............"
23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103].
24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 21 :: O.A.No.489/2024 of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where 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 or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:
(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 22 :: O.A.No.489/2024 cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."
11.2 Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563: (2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 321, emphasized about the scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in the matter of disciplinary/departmental inquiry and held that:-
"22. 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 finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules 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 (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
12. In view of the above judgments it is clear that in the matter of disciplinary proceeding, the scope of jurisdiction of Tribunals and Hon'ble High Courts to interfere with it is limited, it is required to see that whether adequate opportunity has been given to the delinquent officer to explain his stand? Whether the punishment if any imposed commensurate with the gravity of the proved charges/misconduct committed by the CO or not? Whether the decision has been taken 2026.01.15 PRATIK VYAS 11:57:46+05'30' :: 23 :: O.A.No.489/2024 without any evidence or not? Moreover, the Tribunals are not there to appreciate the evidence or act as an appellate Authority.
13. In the present case, from perusal of the documents/ evidence on records, it is clear that applicant was served with Charge Memorandum dated 23.05.2021. After conducting the Inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted its Report on 15.09.2022 without obtaining the written brief from the Presenting Officer and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority after accepting the objections of the applicant with regard to the said Inquiry Report dated 15.09.2022 vide his reply dated 28.02.2023 directed the Inquiry Officer to re-start the inquiry proceedings from the stage of submission of Presenting Officer's brief and subsequently, the completing due procedure, the Inquiry Officer submitted Inquiry Report dated 03.09.2023. Therefore, in our considered view, the Charged Officer i.e. the applicant herein was given adequate opportunity to defend his case. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned charge memorandum dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure A/1) and memorandum dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure A/2).
14. Thus, in view of what is stated herein above, the present OA is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, shall stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pv/
2026.01.15
PRATIK VYAS
11:57:46+05'30'