Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ranjeet Singh vs Cabinet Secretariat on 16 September, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.52 of 2023
Orders reserved on : 29.08.2025
Orders pronounced on : 16.09.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
MR. RANJEET SINGH
S/0 SH. MOHAN LAL
RIO RZ-6, DAYAL PARK, SAGARPUR WEST
NEW DELHI-110046
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETIRED AT DEPUTY FIELD OFFICER (GD)
FROM HEAD QUARTERS CABINET SECTT., NEW DELHI
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Jasvinder Kaur)
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY,
HEAD QUARTERS, CABINET SECRETARIAT
2. JOINT SECRETARY (PERS.)
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
3. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (PERS.)
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
ALL AT: HEAD QUARTERS, CABINET SECRETARIAT
J672+F26, RASHTRAPATI BHAWAN, PRESIDENT'S ESTATE,
NEW DELHI -110004
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ranjan Tyagi)
RAVI 2025.09.18
KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30'
Item No.23/C-2 2 OA No.52/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By way of the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"8.1 May quash and set aside impugned orders dated 01/08/2019 and 25/10/20 19 whereby the Respondents ordered that the pay of Shri Ranjeet Singh, DFO (GD), ID No. 14245-P be reduced by four stages from Rs. 52000/- to Rs. 46200/- in level 7 of the pay matrix for a period of two years w.e.f. 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021 with cumulative effect and that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay and declined the Appeal of the Applicant against the order of punishment;
8.2 Quash and set aside the DE held against the Applicant vide Memorandum dated 10/11/2017 being vitiated;
8.3 Direct the Respondents to pay arrears of pay and allowances withheld in pursuance of impugned order of punishment dated 01/08/2019;
8.4 Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant joined Cabinet Secretariat as Field Assistant (GD) on 02.05.1986. In the year 2014, applicant was allotted General Pool Type-III accommodation, bearing municipal number Qtr. No. H-427, at Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi which was occupied by him with his family. Prior to occupying the said Govt. accommodation, applicant was residing at Type-II, General Pool accommodation at R. K. Puram, New Delhi.
2.1 It is stated by the applicant that one Mr. Sanjiv Grover, one of the acquaintances of the applicant approached the wife of the applicant to accommodate his friend one Mr. Mahender Singh in their Govt. accommodation. The said Sh. Mahender Singh RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 3 OA No.52/2023 pleaded that his younger son, who was allegedly a cancer patient had just been married and this newly wedded son and wife were to be accommodated for not more than a month. This request was for about a month, as they were looking for a larger accommodation for the entire family. On entirely humanitarian basis the newlyweds were given access to one room of the Govt. accommodation. However, the said Mr. Mahender Singh managed to take over the entire accommodation in absence of the applicant's family when they have gone to be with the mother of applicant in her illness. After about three weeks, when the applicant returned to the allotted accommodation, they were not given access to the entire house. The applicant found that Mr. Mahender Singh and his entire family had shifted to their house and had occupied two of the three rooms. The family of Mr. Mahender Singh dilly dallied and refused to vacate the premises. The applicant lodged a complaint dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure A-3) with the local Police Station.
2.2 Since the local Police failed to take appropriate action on the said complaint of the applicant and being targeted by Mr. Sanjiv Grover and Mr. Mahender Singh and his family, he himself fell ill. The applicant was told to pay up Rs.5,00,000/- by the encroachers in lieu of the flat.
2.3 On 02.11.2016, Directorate of Estate inspected the Govt. accommodation of the applicant in his absence. The people present in the house at the time of inspection presented themselves as tenant. Although applicant was not summoned by the Directorate at that time, however, on 11.1.2017, applicant received a show cause notice from the Directorate of Estate.
Thereafter, Directorate of Estate imposed a penalty of
RAVI 2025.09.18
KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30'
Item No.23/C-2 4 OA No.52/2023
Rs.2,76,394/- upon the applicant holding him guilty of subletting the Govt. accommodation.
2.4 Thereafter, the Respondents decided to hold an inquiry under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the applicant and accordingly issued a Memorandum dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure A-4) to the applicant. The sole article of charge levelled against the applicant is reproduced herein below for reference:
"That the said Shri Ranjeet Singh, DFO (GD), ID 14245 posted at Hqrs., New Delhi has committed gross misconduct in as much as, he had sublet the General Pool Government accommodation (i.e. Qtr. No. H-427, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi) allotted to him to some unauthorised person, in contravention of the provisions contained in SR 317-B-20 of the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963. Allotment of the said residences has since been cancelled by Directorate of Estate vide order No.DE/8/6982/SJN/E/2017 dated 09/02/2017.
2. By his aforesaid acts of omission and commission, the said Shri Ranjeet Singh failed to maintain absolute integrity and conducted himself in a manner highly unbecoming of a Government servant in contravention of Rule 15 (A) and Rule 3
(l)(i) & 3 (l)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964." Along with the said Memorandum, Article of Charge, Imputation of Charge, List of documents, List of witness had also been annexed.
2.5 The applicant submitted his written statement of defence dated 28.12.2017 (Annexure A-5) denying the aforesaid article of charge levelled against him. Being not satisfied by the aforesaid reply of the applicant, the Respondent No.2, i.e., the Disciplinary Authority continued with DE and thereafter appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The Preliminary hearing of DE held on 26.02.2018 in which the applicant denied the Articles of Charge and the matter was then fixed for 09.03.2020.
RAVI 2025.09.18
KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30'
Item No.23/C-2 5 OA No.52/2023
2.6 It is submitted by the applicant that the Inquiry Officer
did not take note of the fact that the applicant had not been supplied with the documents referred to in the Annexure-III to the said Memorandum. The applicant wrote to Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer on 05.03.2018 and 09.03.2018 to supply the documents referred in Annexure-III of the Memorandum dated 10.11.2017, so as to enable him to prepare defence (Annexure A-6 Colly).
2.7 Only thereafter the documents mentioned in the Memorandum dated 10.11.2017 were supplied to the applicant and after two adjournments, the regular hearing of the DE was held on 18.04.2018 wherein the applicant was cross questioned by the Presenting Officer and the hearing was concluded on that very day. The PO neither adduced any witness nor exhibited any of the documents mentioned in Annexure-III of the Chargesheet dated 10.11.2017 during the DE (Annexure A-7 Colly.) and (Annexure A-8).
2.8 The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings dated 18.04.2019 wherein he not only quoted but referred and relied upon the documents mentioned in Annexure-III of the Memorandum dated 10.11.2017, which were neither adduced nor exhibited nor proved in the enquiry by the Presenting Officer through anyone in general or by the intended proposed witness mentioned in Annexure-IV of the Memorandum dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure A-9).
2.9 The applicant submitted his written submissions on 26.06.2019 (Annexure A-10) to the Respondent No.2, i.e., Disciplinary Authority against the aforesaid findings returned by RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 6 OA No.52/2023 the IO in its report. The Disciplinary Authority did not accede to the grounds taken by the applicant in the said written submissions and vide impugned order dated 01.08.2019 (Annexure A-1) ordered that the pay of the applicant be reduced by four stages from Rs.52000/- to Rs. 46200/- in level 7 of the pay matrix for a period of two years w.e.f. 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021 with cumulative effect and the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
2.10 Aggrieved by the said impugned penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the applicant preferred an appeal which was considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure A-2). 2.11 Thereafter, the applicant made a request vide his application dated 4.2.2020 (Annexure A-12) of personal hearing from respondent no.1, i.e., Secretary, Headquarters, Cabinet Secretariat regarding the DE and the penalty which was granted to him by the respondent no.1 on 27.02.2020. Thereafter, vide Memorandum dated 16/04/2020, the respondent No.1 had closed the matter and applicant was directed to answer some more queries (Annexure A-13) which was replied by the applicant vide Annexure A-14). Thereafter, the applicant did not receive any other further order or memorandum from the Respondents. The applicant remained hopeful for some respite but to no purpose. He stood superannuated on 31.07.2021.
2.13 It is stated by the applicant that it was only upon retirement, he came to know that such cases need to be agitated RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 7 OA No.52/2023 and presented before an appropriate judicial forum for redressal as once the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal, there is no provision for further review of the said orders and the remedy lies before the competent court. Hence, the present OA. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT'S COUNSEL
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Enquiry Officer did not observe the rules meant for DE as prescribed and mandated under Rule 14 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and submitted that in State of Uttararanchal & Ors. v. Kharak Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 236, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the enquiry should not be an empty formality. A witness should not be the Enquiry Officer. The departmental evidence should be led in the first instance and in the presence of charged employee, thereafter, copy of enquiry along with material relied on should be furnished to charged employee. If these requirements are not fulfilled, the enquiry cannot be held proper. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the following para of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge:
(i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities.
(ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the enquiry officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer.
(iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 8 OA No.52/2023 evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.
(iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any."
However, in the present case, the department did not take any steps to lead evidence against the applicant, did not afford any opportunity to him to cross-examine the witness(es) of the employer/ Respondents. On the contrary, applicant was examined by the PO and the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry and referred to the documents relied upon in the Memorandum without enabling the same to be produced and questioned by the applicant.
3.1 Learned counsel further argued that the documents mentioned in Annexure-III of the Memorandum dated 10.11.2017 allegedly pertained to the enquiry held by the Directorate of Estate regarding the alleged subletting of the Govt. accommodation, yet not even a single person from the Directorate of Estate came to adduce and attest to the authenticity of the said documents. The said documents were not even put to the applicant to examine. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 582, the relevant paragraph of which is reproduced as under:-
"3. Before us the sole ground urged is as to the non-observance of the principles of natural justice in not examining the complainant, Shri Virender Singh, and the witness, Jagdish Ram. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have brushed aside the grievance made by the appellant that the non-examination of those two persons has prejudiced his case. Examination of these two witnesses would have revealed as to whether the complaint made by Virender Singh was correct or not and to establish that he was the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied the appellant to the hospital for RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 9 OA No.52/2023 medical examination, would have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. We do not think the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in thinking that non-examination of these two persons could not be material. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court and the Tribunal erred in not attaching importance to this contention of the appellant."
3.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that if the DE and findings are tested on the parameters defined under Rules of Disciplinary Inquiry of various departments, the same would miserably fail. The requirements of a valid disciplinary enquiry by an Enquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority, as culled out from Rules of Disciplinary Inquiry of various Departments, are as follows:-
How to proceed with the enquiry: functions and duties of the Enquiry Officer
(a) To prepare a record sheet. The first thing to do at the outset is that the Enquiry Officer should prepare a record sheet of the proceeding in which he has to record the names and designations of all the persons called for to attend the enquiry and the capacities in which they are attending. The date, time and place of the enquiry should also be noted.
(b) To get confirmation from the employee of the receipt of chargesheet and notice of the enquiry. In case no explanation to the charge sheet has been received from the accused employee, it would be necessary to get confirmation whether the charge -sheet has been received by the accused, and whether the notice of the enquiry has been duly received by him. The charge-sheet as well as the notice should be marked as exhibits.
(c) To explain to the accused the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer should then explain to the workman the charges levelled against him in the language the accused understands, or get this explained by an interpreter if the Enquiry Officer is not conversant with that language. Explanation to the charges if any submitted by the accused should also be read out, and the accused asked if he has anything to state in addition to what he has already stated in his reply to the charges. This should also be marked as an exhibit.
(d) To record the additional statement further to the explanation, if any. The Enquiry Officer should record whether the accused has got to say in elaboration of, or in addition to, the explanation made by him. Any RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 10 OA No.52/2023 thing thus stated by the accused at this stage should also be marked as an exhibit to the proceedings.
(e) To ask the accused if he pleads guilty to any or all of the charges.
The Enquiry Officer should ask the accused whether he pleads guilty to any, or all of the charges made in the charge-sheet. If he pleads guilty to any or all he charges, he should record this admission of guilt, duly signed and attested by the witnesses. In such a case, there will be no need to proceed further with the enquiry. In case of denial of the charges, or any of the charges, the Enquiry Officer should proceed with the enquiry into the charges not admitted.
(f) To ask the accused to produce documentary evidence or to produce witnesses in his defence, if any. The Enquiry Officer should then ask the accused if he has any documentary evidence to meet the charges or if he will produce witnesses in his defence. He should then explain the procedure to be followed in examining the witnesses.
(g) To ask the Presenting Officer to present the case on behalf of the employer. After these preliminaries are over, the Enquiry Officer should ask the representative of the employer (who may for the sake of brevity be called the Presenting Officer) to present the case on behalf of the employer.
At this stage it would be most unfair to subject the accused to cross- examination.
Presentation of the Employer's case procedure to be followed:
(a) Procedure of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer should ask the Presenting Officer to state the case on behalf of the Company and ask him to examine the prosecution witnesses. in the presence of the accused. The Enquiry Officer should ensure that while one witness is being examined, no other witnesses of the same party are present during such examination.
It is the normal rule that the Company's case should be presented first in the presence of the accused. The Enquiry Officer should not ask the accused to give his statement in the first instance.
(b) No evidence taken, enquiry vitiated. Where no evidence was led against the worker by the employer at the enquiry but only some questions were put to the workman after reading out the charge sheet to him, it is held that enquiry was illegal and rules of natural justice were violated. Similarly when no witness for the Company was examined and no records or documents were exhibited but the worker was only asked to produce his evidence and documents in support of his defence, the procedure is illegal. It is, however, held that when the worker admits his guilt there is no need RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 11 OA No.52/2023 for the employer to produce evidence and on the basis of the such admission of guilt the punishment can be imposed.
(c) Technical rules of evidence not attracted. The general rules of conducting domestic enquiry are based on the principle of natural justice and formalities of law relating to Civil Procedure Code of technicalities of Evidence Act are not required to be adhered to. But general principles, which are based on principle of natural justice, without which no justice can be done at all apply in domestic enquiry.
(d) List of witnesses to be supplied before enquiry. The Supreme Court has pointed out that the worker must be supplied with a list of management's witnesses before the enquiry. But non- supply of list of witnesses along with the charge sheet does not however, violate the rules of natural justice.
(e) Supply of copies of documents to the employer. Copies of documents relied upon in the enquiry must be supplied to the employee in advance, so that he may have an opportunity to challenge the veracity of the documents.
(f) Tendering oral evidence. As indicated in the above the Enquiry Officer has to ask first the presenting officer to produce the witnesses for the employer. The Enquiry Officer except where the enquiry is held ex pare, has to record the statement of the witnesses produced by the presenting officer on behalf of the employer in presence of the employee.
(g) Opportunity to the accused for cross- examination of prosecution witnesses. The accused has a legal right to cross-examine the witnesses who have deposed against him. This is one of the basic principles of natural justice that a person should not be condemned unheard and hearing includes both examination and cross- examination of witnesses who have deposed against him.
(h) Formal cross-examination, no part of natural justice. However it is made clear that formal cross- examination of witness in domestic enquiry is not the essential requirement of natural justice. Formal cross examination is a procedural justice governed by rules of evidence. It is creation of the Court and is not part of natural justice but of legal and statutory justice.
(i) Right of Enquiry Officer to control cross- examination of witness. If the question is irrelevant then the Enquiry Officer is within his right to disallow the question and such act will not show any bias on his part. The relevancy of questions has to be decided by the Enquiry Officer and even if he takes a wrong decision and thereby disallows a question it would not necessarily make the enquiry unfair or biased if no mala fide motive of the Enquiry Officer could be imputed. But if such disallowance had been RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 12 OA No.52/2023 actuated by a motive of not giving an adequate opportunity to the worker to defend himself the enquiry would be vitiated.
(j) Opportunity to the accused to inspect documents relating to the charge sought to be put in evidence against the employee. Natural justice requires that the charge sheeted employees should, on request, be allowed to inspect the documents and copies of statement, etc. relating to the charge, recorded previously, well in advance, at least two days before the date fixed for enquiry, if not already enclosed with the charge sheet itself. These statements should also be read out, explained and confirmed during the enquiry by these witnesses who made such statements in the preliminary enquiry. To cross-examine properly, the employee must have the knowledge of the earlier statements of the witnesses who deposed against him so that he can question the truth of the allegations made against him.
(k) Power of the Enquiry Officer to put questions to witnesses to elicit further facts or information. After the cross- examination of one witness is over, the Enquiry Officer has power to put any question to the witness in order to elicit more facts and information, if he is satisfied that this is necessary for clarification of points arising out of the evidence tendered by the witness concerned. But he must not put any irrelevant or embarrassing question to any witness.
(l) Re-examination of prosecution witnesses. Re-examination of Company's witnesses may be necessary and may be considered on merits. The objects of such re-examination is to afford the party calling a witness an opportunity of filing the lacuna or explaining the inconsistencies which the cross examination has revealed in the examination-in-chief of the witness.
(m) Recording of signatures on every page of the record of evidence. On completion of the evidence given by a witness, the witness concerned, the defendant and the "observed to the proceeding' if any, will record their signatures on every page of the record of evidence after it has been read over or translated into the language understandable by him. If he refuses to sign the statements, this should be recorded and signed by the "observer to the proceedings" accordingly.
Examination of the defence witnesses: adequate opportunity for adducing evidence
(a) Opportunity for adducing evidence. The accused employee must have an adequate opportunity of producing his own witnesses for examination as well as tendering documentary evidence in his own defence. The expression "adequate opportunity" includes official RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 13 OA No.52/2023 assistance to secure the attendance of the witnesses working in the same establishment. Of course, there is no compulsion for the Enquiry Officer to secure attendance of the witnesses listed by the accused employee, but he cannot refuse to summon any such witnesses who belong to the same establishment. The Enquiry Officer may, at the request of the accused, write to the head of the department requesting him to send the required person to appear at the enquiry at the appointed date and time. In normal circumstances, no employer should refuse to co-operate in such matters, because it is necessary, for the sake of equity, justice and industrial peace, to co-operate in the matter as much as possible.
(b) Opportunity for examining witnesses: The next step for the Enquiry Officer is to ask the accused employee to examine his witnesses as may be present on that date. The same principle of examination-in-chief by the accused or by another employee who represents him followed by the cross- examination by the Presiding Officer, then re-examination of the witnesses, if so desired by the accused will be adopted. If all the witnesses are not examined on the day, the hearing may be adjourned.
(c) Cross- examination of the defence witnesses. The same principle of cross- examination of defence witnesses stated earlier may be followed by the Presiding Officer. There is no fixed principle of cross examination in a domestic enquiry. The main object of such cross examination is three- fold; (i) to impeach the accuracy, credibility and general value of the evidence given-in-chief; (ii) to detect and expose discrepancies; and (iii) to elicit suppressed facts which will support the case of the cross- examination party.
(d) Re-examination of the witnesses by the accused. After the cross- examination of the defence witnesses is over, the Enquiry Officer should ask the accused if he would like to examine any of his witnesses, with a view to clarity some more points left open in the course of cross examination. If he wishes If he wishes to re-examine some of his own witnesses, his request should be granted but if he wishes to cross examine any of the prosecution witnesses at this stage his request should be considered on merit.
(e) Cross examination of defence witness by the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer is competent to ask questions to the defence witnesses. So the mere fact that defence witnesses were cross-examined by the Enquiry Officer does not show that he was biased. But he can do so only way of clarification. But he must not himself cross- examine the defence witness as if he is the prosecutor, for that would be violation of the principles of natural justice.
Examination and cross- examination of the accused.
RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 14 OA No.52/2023
The accused has a right to examine himself on the conclusion of the evidence. This means that he is to make a statement to disprove the charges. After his statement is over the Presenting Officer will cross examine him.
The golden rule is that the accused should not be called at the outset to give a statement nor should he be subjected to cross- examination before any evidence is led against him. This principle of law is equally applicable to all enquiries whether conducted by public agencies or private bodies. On completion of the examination, cross-examination, etc., of the witnesses of both sides, the Enquiry Officer will bear both the parties which is in legal terminology, known as 'argument'. The representative of the management may submit his argument first and in reply to that the employee may argue his case. The employer can be heard in rebuttal. The Enquiry Officer may permit them to submit written briefs, if they so desire.
Arguments by the parties are not an essential factor in a domestic enquiry.
Appreciation of evidence in a domestic enquiry. Strict law of evidence is not applicable in a domestic enquiry, but some legal evidence is necessary to establish the charge. There are, however, certain basic principles of evidence which no Tribunal can ignore and one of them is the evidence of doubtful nature, e.g. unsigned statement of a person who has not been produced before the Tribunal recorded at the back of an accused person by an Investigating Officer who is also the prosecutor, should not be accepted. The findings of the Tribunal being based on such inadmissible evidence cannot be sustained. The domestic-Tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act, but it has nowhere been laid down that even substantive rules which would form part of natural justice, also can be ignored by the domestic Tribunals. The principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom enquiry is held and the statements made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as evidence is one of the basic principle, which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic Tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of procedure contained in the Evidence Act. 3.4 On the strength of the above, learned counsel submitted that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Respondents named herein RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 15 OA No.52/2023 above clearly did not follow and observe the aforementioned GOLDEN RULE. Thus, the DE cannot be held to be fair in any manner whatsoever and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside as well as the orders passed consequent thereto are also liable to be quashed and set aside. REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS
4. Learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the counter reply, at the very outset, raised a preliminary objection founded upon the provisions of The Intelligence Organisations (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1985 [Act No.58 of 1985] and submitted that the respondent-organisation squarely falls within the ambit of the said enactment. The preamble of the Act itself makes it explicit that it was enacted:
"to provide for the restriction of certain rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution in their application to the members of certain organisations established by the Central Government for purposes of intelligence or counter-intelligence, so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them."
On the strength of the above, learned counsel for the respondents urged that the statutory framework recognizes the necessity of imposing stringent restrictions on the members of such organisations. Consequently, the standards of discipline, integrity, and conduct expected from the members of the respondent- organisation are far more rigorous than those ordinarily applicable to other civil services. Therefore, according to the respondents, any departure from such standards cannot be countenanced and the claims of the applicant must be examined within this special statutory context.
RAVI 2025.09.18
KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30'
Item No.23/C-2 16 OA No.52/2023
4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents on merits also
submitted that the applicant joined the organisation in the rank of Field Assistant on 02.05.1986 and retired on superannuation on 31.07.2021 in rank of Deputy Field Officer. The applicant while posted at New Delhi was allotted a Government accommodation i.e. Qtr. No.H-427, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi in September 2014. A team from Directorate of Estates inspected the said accommodation on 02.11.2016. During the visit, the Inspection Team found that the quarter was occupied by some unauthorised persons, who also conveyed that they are paying rent of Rs.20,000/- to the allotee, i.e., the applicant. A show cause notice dated 11.01.2017 (Annexure-R/1) was issued by Directorate of Estates (DoE), Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi directing the applicant to appear on 31.01.2017. His explanation was considered by the DoE, but was not found convincing. Therefore, allotment of the quarter was cancelled by DoE and subsequently got vacated. His case was forwarded to the department for initiating a Departmental Enquiry against him. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vide Memorandum dated 10.11.2017 for subletting Govt. accommodation and thereby violating Rule 15-A of CCS(Conduct) Rules. In the departmental inquiry, the charges levelled against the applicant were proved in the departmental enquiry. Accordingly, penalty was imposed vide order dated 01.08.2019 (Annexure-R/II) reducing his pay by four stages from Rs. 52000/- to Rs.46200/- in level 7 of the pay matrix for a period of two years w.e.f. 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021 with cumulative effect. It was also ordered that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on the RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 17 OA No.52/2023 expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The applicant submitted his appeal on 09.09.2019 against the aforesaid penalty order. The said appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure-R/III). Thereafter, the applicant requested on 4.2.2020 for personal audience before the respondent No.1 to present his grievances. Subsequently, the applicant met respondent No.1 on 27.02.2020. But he did not submit any statutory application for revision of penalty. No statutory provision after appeal has been disposed off. While the Respondent No.1 was convinced with the penalty awarded for the misconduct, he directed to look into the matter in greater detail. Thereafter, it came to light that Qtr. No.H-427, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi allotted to the applicant was sublet by him on a previous occasion also, reportedly to one Mr. Katoch in 2014. This was, however, not reported by the Directorate of Estates. The respondent No.1 after considering the matter in light of facts and records available decided not to revisit the case. The decision was conveyed to the applicant vide Memo dated 16.04.2020. Explanation was also sought from him regarding above previous subletting to which he only submitted (on 28.05.2020) that the name of Mr. Katoch was never placed during the course of enquiry.
4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the documents listed in Annexure-III of the Charge sheet were supplied to the applicant upon his written request in accordance with sub rules 29 and 31 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which provides that the delinquent official can be given access of such documents on his request. Further, the documents listed RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 18 OA No.52/2023 were already available with the applicant, still he requested for them with an intention to delay the proceedings. 4.3 Learned counsel stated that the applicant was given all reasonable opportunities to defend himself during the course of inquiry. The penalty vide order dated 01.08.2019 (Annexure R/II) was imposed upon the applicant since the charge levelled against him was proved in the inquiry. His appeal dated 09.09.2019 addressed to the Appellate Authority as per the provisions of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was also considered based on merit of the case and since there was no new fact cited by the applicant in his appeal, the Appellate Authority decided not to revisit the case.
4.4 Learned counsel also stated that the applicant was also granted personal audience, as requested by him, before the respondent No.1 on 27.02.2020. While the respondent No.1 was convinced with the penalty awarded for the misconduct. On his directions, further investigation in the matter revealed that Qtr. No. H-427, -Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi allotted to the applicant was sublet by him on a previous occasion also in 2014, reportedly to one Mr. Katoch. This was, however, not reported by the Directorate of Estates and the respondent No.1 after considering the matter in light of facts and records available, decided not to revisit the case. The decision was conveyed to the applicant vide memo dated 16.04.2020 and his explanation was sought regarding the previous subletting of the said Govt. accommodation. In his reply dated 28.05.2020, the applicant only submitted that the name of Mr. Katoch was never placed during the course of enquiry. Fu1her the applicant never submitted any RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 19 OA No.52/2023 statutory application for revision of the penalty imposed upon him and retired on superannuation on 31.07.2021. As such question of the effect of reduction in his future increments of pay does not arise.
4.5 Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the case of Kharak Singh (supra) relied upon by the applicant is not relevant to the instant case.
4.6 Learned counsel for the respondents further reiterated that the Directorate of Estate (DoE) vide order No.DE/8/6982/SJN/E/2017 dated 9/2/17 had informed that as a result of enquiries made, it was proved that the applicant had not been residing in the said General Pool accommodation allotted to him. The DoE had also forwarded the inspection report dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure R/IV) (with photographs) and other relevant documents to the respondents. Thereafter, the DE was initiated against the applicant for violating Rule 15 (A) and Rule 3(1) (i) & (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Since all the documental evidences against him were available, there was no requirement/provision for any DoE staff to authenticate the same. Also, the applicant could not produce any document or witness or evidence in his defense. The charge against him was clearly proved in the DE by the Inquiry Officer. Further, reliance placed by the applicant on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardwari Lal (supra) is also not relevant to the facts of the present case.
RAVI 2025.09.18
KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30'
Item No.23/C-2 20 OA No.52/2023
REJOINDER
5. The applicant besides reiterating the contentions as raised in the OA had refuted the averments of the reply filed by the respondents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant.
ANALYSIS
7. The Memorandum of Charge under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for initiating disciplinary proceedings was issued to the applicant on 10.11.2017. After completion of the proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 01.08.2019, imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by four stages, i.e., from Rs. 52,000/- to Rs. 46,200/- in Level 7 of the pay matrix, for a period of two years w.e.f. 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021, with cumulative effect. It was further directed that the applicant would not earn increments of pay during the said period and on the expiry of the penalty, the reduction would also have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The applicant preferred an appeal dated 09.09.2019 before the Appellate Authority against the aforesaid order of punishment. However, the Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 25.10.2019, rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the said orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking quashing of the departmental inquiry initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 10.11.2017, as well as the consequential orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 21 OA No.52/2023 Authorities. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to release arrears of pay and allowances withheld pursuant to the impugned order of punishment dated 01.08.2019. 7.1 In the OA, the applicant has mainly raised a contention that the Inquiry Officer did not observe the rules meant for departmental inquiry as prescribed and mandated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and has profoundly quoted the relevant Rules/clauses of the relevant rules required to be followed by the Inquiring Authority while conducting the departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and has profusely quoted the relevant rules/clauses required to be followed by the inquiring authority while conducting departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Besides pointing out many deficiencies while conducting the inquiry proceedings, the applicant's learned counsel has raised a contention that the Inquiry Officer did not accord any opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine the witness(es). On the contrary, the applicant was examined by the PO and the Inquiry Officer closed the inquiry proving the charges.
8. Since this matter pertains to departmental proceedings, we deem it apt to observe that it is settled principle of law that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, normally the Court/Tribunal may not interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 22 OA No.52/2023 the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court/Tribunal, since the High Court/Tribunal does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review. The Tribunal cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities.
8.1 In this regard, it is profitable to mention that by referring catena of judgments on the point of scope of judicial review by the 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."
(emphasis supplied) 8.2 In another case in the matter of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while re-appreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings as under:-
RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 23 OA No.52/2023 "13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate 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."
8.3 In another judgment rendered by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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 RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 24 OA No.52/2023 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 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."
8.4 Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh (2022) 6 SCC 563: (2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 321, emphasised about the scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in the matter of disciplinary/departmental inquiry and held that: -
RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 25 OA No.52/2023 "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."
9. By keeping in mind the aforesaid dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunals in the matters of disciplinary proceedings and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted hereinabove, the following issues are required to be adjudge in this case by this Tribunal:-
(a) Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the applicant was in conformity with the mandatory requirements of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the settled principles of natural justice?
(b) Whether the failure of the respondents to lead departmental evidence in the first instance, and the consequent denial of opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine the management's witnesses, vitiated the enquiry proceedings?
(c) Whether reliance placed by the Enquiry Officer upon documents annexed to the charge Memorandum, without proving them through competent witnesses and without affording the applicant an opportunity to test their authenticity, rendered the enquiry unsustainable in law?
(d) Whether the examination of the applicant as the first step of the enquiry, without prior production of departmental RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 26 OA No.52/2023 evidence, violated the "golden rule" that the charged officer cannot be compelled to depose before any evidence is led against him?
(e) Whether non-production of witness(es) from the DoE, whose documents formed the basis of allegations, amounts to denial of fair opportunity and thus constitutes a breach of principles of natural justice?
(f) Whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer can be sustained in law, having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand v.
Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236 and Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P. (1999) 8 SCC 582?
(g) If the enquiry proceedings are found to be vitiated, whether the punishment order and all consequential actions are liable to be quashed and set aside?
10. After perusal of the impugned Memorandum dated 10.11.17, which pertains to list of Witness by whom the article of charge framed against the applicant is proposed to be sustained, we find that two witnesses were mentioned as (i) 'SO (Admn.I)'; and (ii) 'Any other witness found relevant to the case'. At this stage, we deem it fit to refer to Rule 14 (3)(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which provides that "a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained."
11. Further Rule 14(4) of the Rules ibid makes it clear that on the date fixed for the inquiry, the disciplinary authority/Presenting Officer shall produce the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved, and the witnesses shall RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 27 OA No.52/2023 be examined in support thereof. Thus, Annexure-IV cannot be vague or generic, it must give the specific names and designations of the witnesses, who will depose in support of the charges. The purpose of Annexure-IV is to give the Charged Officer a clear and effective opportunity of defence and to cross-examination or seek relevant records. If Annexure-IV only states "SO (Admn.)" or "Any other witness found relevant to the case" without naming individuals, it violates the principles of natural justice and Rule 14 safeguards.
12. The Courts/Tribunals have repeatedly held that non-supply of specific list of witnesses or failure to examine them is a procedural infirmity that may vitiate the proceedings. It is profitable to refer to the order/judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India vs. Shameem Akhtar in Writ Petition (Civil) No.8726/2015 decided on 11.09.2015 dealing the same issue in which the Hon'ble Delhi High Court noted the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue and gave a finding that "In our view, this in-built safeguard has been provided to allow a delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses and to rebut the allegations against him. In the absence of any witness and in the absence of any opportunity to cross- examine a witness would be against the canon of natural justice and the same cannot be treated as a mere formality". The relevant paras of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court read as under:-
"12. Another ground which was raised by the respondent before the Tribunal for quashing of the charge sheet was that the same was in violation of Rule 14 of sub-Rule (3) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The said Rule reads as under:
"(3) where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and Rule 15, the RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 28 OA No.52/2023 Disciplinary Authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up -
(i) the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge;
(ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain-
(a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant;
(b) a list of documents by which, and a list of
witnesses by whom the articles of charge are
proposed to be sustained."
13. A reading of the aforesaid Rule would show that the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of Articles of Charge shall contain the list of documents and list of witnesses by whom the Articles of Charge are proposed to be sustained. In the present case, no list of witnesses was provided to prove the charges leveled against the respondent herein. In the case of Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police and Others, reported at JT 1998(8) SC 603, it was held as under:
".....there was absolutely no evidence in support of the charge framed against the appellant and the entire findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are vitiated by reasons of the fact that they are not supported by any evidence on record and are wholly perverse. Again, in its judgment in Roop Singh Negi Vs.Punjab National Bank and Others 2009(2) SCC 570 the Apex Court held that mere production of documents is not enough but their contents have to be proved by examining the witnesses. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:-
14. Indisputably, a departmental proceedings is a quasi judicial proceedings. The Enquiry Officer must be performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a find upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof.
Again the Apex Court in Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo (1988) 4 SCC 619 held that in a disciplinary proceedings documents are the tools for the delinquent employee for cross-examining the witnesses who deposed against him. Further, the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P.& Others 1999 (8) SCC 582 held that in a departmental RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 29 OA No.52/2023 enquiry proceedings examination of the material witnesses is a must. We are, therefore of the considered view that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Applicant vide the impugned Memorandum dated 22.02.2011 is an exercise in futility.
8. In view of above position, we allow this OA and quash and set aside the impugned Memorandum dated 22,12,2011 with all consequential benefits. As the Applicant has already retired from service, the Respondents shall pass appropriate orders in favour of the Applicant positively within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
14. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported at 2010 (2) SLJ 59, wherein it was observed as under:
"26....Even such circumstances it is incumbent on the enquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet. Since the Government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the enquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the enquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. Enquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebatted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.
27. Apart from the above by virtue of Article 311(2)of the Constitution of India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee.
28. When a department enquiry is conducted against the Government Servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate/removal from service in the case of Shaughnessy Vs. United States 345 US 206 (1953) (Jackson J), a judge of the United States Supreme Court RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 30 OA No.52/2023 has said procedural fairness and regularity are of the 20 indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied."
15. It is settled law that the charges leveled against a delinquent official is to be proved in the inquiry before any penalty is imposed. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 provides that the Articles of Charge are to be supported with documents and proved by witnesses during the hearing. In our view, this in-built safeguard has been provided to allow a delinquent employee to cross-examine the witnesses and to rebut the allegations against him. In the absence of any witness and in the absence of any opportunity to cross-examine a witness would be against the canon of natural justice and the same cannot be treated as a mere formality."
13. Further, we find that it is mentioned in the IO's report dated 18.4.2019 (Annexure A/9) that during the preliminary hearing held in the office of the then IO on 26.2.2018, the CO denied the charges levelled against him. The daily order sheet dated 26.2.2018 at page 57 of the OA also reveals that the preliminary hearing was attended by the applicant and the Presenting Officer asked him the questions, the relevant portion of which reads as under:-
"PO : Do you accept The Articles of Charge-I & 1?
CO : No. I deny the charges.
PO : You did not sublet the quarter (Q. No.H-427, Sarojini
Nagar, New Deln)
CO : No. became victim of circumstances. In May 2016 on
the recommendation of family friend Sanjiv Grover, I allowed one Naveen, who was undergoing cancer treatment from AIIMS and was newly married to stay in one of the rooms of my quarter (government accommodation under reference) with his' wife on humanitarian grounds for one month only to attend follow up treatment. During that period, I was suffering from tuberculosis. Later my wife also found to be suffering from TB. To save my children from this contagious disease I sent them to my parents' house in Sagarpur, near Janakpuri, New Delhi. Given the scenario, I was in a position to spareone room. Naveen prolonged his stay and refused to leave, instead demanded five lakhs rupees to vacate the room. I lodged a complaint against Sanjiv Grover, Mani Kirpal and Naveen's father at Saroiini Nagar Police Station on.21.9.2016. But, Naveen did not move out. Everybody viz., Sanjiv Grover, Naveen and his father, certain personsin DoE staff, NDMC staff and police conspired against me.
PO : You have put in more than 30 years in the department and strangely you acted unwisely. You should have informed CIS through Controling Officer - Dir(AW) about this development and RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 31 OA No.52/2023 lodging of police complaint against Sanjiv Grover, Mani Kirpal and Naveen's father.
CO : I deeply regret that. I was extremely petrified.
PO : Do you want to engage Defence Assistant?
CO : No.
PO : Provide us background details of your family friend
Sanjiv Giover.
CO : Yes, I will do that.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(Ranjeet Singh) (Sanjeev Ranjan) (Lhari Dorjee Lhatoo)
Charged Officer Presenting Officer Inquiry Officer"
14. At this stage, it is profitable to refer the provisions of Rule 14 (9) of the Rules ibid, which provides as under
"If the Government servant who has not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defence, appears before the Inquirying Authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the Inquiring Authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government servant thereon."
15. On a plain reading of the above provision, it is evidently clear that it is the responsibility of the Inquiring Authority to ask the charged officer (applicant) whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. From the order sheet dated 26.02.2018 signed on 27.02.2018, as quoted above, it is apparent that while conducting the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer violated this mandatory requirement as instead of him, the PO asked the questions to the applicant. However, while writing the Inquiry Report, the Inquiring Authority has merely stated that preliminary hearing held in the office of the then IO on 26.02.2018, the CO denied the charges levelled against him. The Inquiring Authority has abducted its responsibility and allowed unhindered access to the PO. Such an RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 32 OA No.52/2023 approach is shun and contemned in strong words. Without introducing the documents, the Daily Order sheets dated 26.02.2028 signed on 27.02.2018, 09.03.2018 and 18.04.2018 signed on 19.04.2018, available on records of the inquiry proceedings reveal that none of the listed documents were taken on record by the Inquiry Officer nor the veracity of such documents were examined by the applicant during the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority while writing the Inquiry Report dated 18.04.2019 has examined the said documents while arriving to the conclusion that charges levelled against the applicant as proved.
15.1 The proceedings of Inquiry as well as daily order sheets placed on record in the pleadings of the OA do not reveal that the applicant has been extended an opportunity as provided under the provision of Rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. For facility of reference, the provision of Rule 14 (18) of the Rules ibid is quoted as under:-
"(18) The Inquiring Authority may, after the Government servant close his case, and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him."
15.2 The above position makes it clear that the Charged Officer (applicant in this case) has a right to examine himself on the conclusion of the evidence. This means that he has to make a statement to disprove the charges and Presenting Officer has a right to cross-examine him. The fundamental rule in the departmental inquiry is that the Charged Officer neither should be called at the outset to give a statement nor should he be subjected to cross examine before the evidence is led against him. This principle of law is applicable to all departmental inquiries whether conducted by the RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 33 OA No.52/2023 public authorities or private authorities. Accordingly, the inquiry proceedings stand vitiated on this count.
16. In Kharak Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court condemned enquiries that degenerate into empty formalities and in Hardwari Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that failure to examine crucial witnesses, particularly the complainant whose testimony was central to the allegations, vitiates the inquiry. The absence of such material testimony was held to have caused serious prejudice to the charged officer, thereby rendering the disciplinary proceedings unsustainable in law.
17. It is trite that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to examining the decision-making process. As observed above, the Inquiry Officer in the present case violated the provisions of Rules 14(3)(ii), 14(4), and 14(9) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Such violation amounts to denial of the principles of natural justice. Despite the fact that the applicant, in his reply to the Inquiry Officer's report as well as in his appeal before the Appellate Authority, specifically raised the plea of violation of natural justice by the Inquiry Officer, neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority addressed this aspect while passing the impugned orders. Since we find that the inquiry proceedings were not initiated by the respondents in accordance with the rules governing the subject, we do not consider it necessary to examine the other contentions raised by the applicant. In view of above, the issues as framed in para 9 above are answered in favour of the applicant.
18. In the result, for the forgoing reasons, the present OA is disposed of with the following directions:-
RAVI 2025.09.18 KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30' Item No.23/C-2 34 OA No.52/2023
(i) The impugned Orders dated 01.08.2019 and 25.10.2019 as well as the impugned Memorandum dated 10.11.2017 are quashed and set aside;
(ii) The applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with rules and law on the subject;
(iii) The respondents are at liberty to initiate the departmental inquiry proceedings from the stage of issuance of Charge Memorandum, if they so desire.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
RAVI 2025.09.18
KANOJIA 11:58:05+05'30'