Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Naresh N Panchal vs M/O Communications on 20 August, 2025
1 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
O.A.No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71 OF 2016
Dated this Wednesday the 20th day of August, 2025.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Mr.Umesh Gajankush, Member (Judicial).
Felix.W. D'Souza, presently working as Scientist-'C' in SAMEER
having his office at IIT Campus, Powai, Mumbai and
residing at 1/10, Cardinal Gracias CHS,
Marve Road, Orlem, Malad (West),
Mumbai - 400 064. - Applicant in OA 67/2016
Mohan S. Jadhav, Aged 53 years,
Presently working as Accounts Officer I in SAMEER
having his Office as IIT Campus, Powai, Mumbai and
residing at B/404, Saryu CHS Ltd., Shuchidham Complex,
Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Malad (East),
Mumbai 400 097. - Applicant in OA 68/2016
Naresh N. Panchal, Aged 45 years,
Presently working as Scientist - D in SAMEER
having his Office as IIT Campus, Powai, Mumbai and
residing at 0:1/F-26/Sector 22, Sameer CHS Ltd.,
Amra Marg, C.B.D. Belapur,
Navi Mumbai 400 614. - Applicant in OA 69/2016
Madhuri D. Gawde, Aged 50 years,
Presently working as Accounts Officer I in SAMEER
having her Office as IIT Campus, Powai, Mumbai and
residing at Flat No.1102, Emeradl Isle II,
Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=
Royal Palm, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai 400 165. - Applicant in OA 70/2016
cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=
Hemant Anant
0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c
7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra,
SERIALNUMBER=
44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960
Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016
Vijay L. Shinde, aged 49 years,
presently working as Scientist-'B' in SAMEER
having his office at IIT Campus,
Powai, Mumbai and residing at Plot No.65, Flat No.10,
Rajshree Prasad CHS, Dadar Colony, Bhandup (East),
Mumbai 400 042. - Applicant in OA 71/2016
( By Advocate Shri V.A. Nagrani ).
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary of
Department of Electronics And Information Technology,
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology,
Govt. of India, Electronics Niketan,
6 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003.
2. The Chairman, Governing Council, SAMEER,
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology,
Govt. of India, Electronics Niketan,
6 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
3. The Director, Society for Applied Microwave Electronics
Engineering and Research (SAMEER),
Post Box No.8448, IIT Campus Powai,
Mumbai - 400 076. - Respondents in all the OAs
( By Advocate Shri N.G. Helekar ).
Order reserved on : 10.07.2025
Order pronounced on : 20.08.2025.
Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65=
cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone=
Hemant Anant
0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c
7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra,
SERIALNUMBER=
44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960
Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
3 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016
ORDER
Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
This order shall govern the disposal of O.A.67/2016, O.A.68/2016, O.A.69/2016, O.A.70/2016 and O.A.71/2016, as common question is involved in all these OAs and the learned counsel for the parties have addressed their arguments in O.A.67/2016 and, therefore, facts stated in the O.A. 67/2016 are taken into consideration.
2. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) That this Honourable Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the charge-sheet dated 28.08.2013 to the applicant;
b) that such other and further order or orders be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case, as may be required;
c) that the costs of this application be granted."
2.1. Brief facts of the case as stated in the O.A. are that SAMEER was created in 1984 after it was spun off from the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and set up as a separate autonomous body under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology fully funded and administratively controlled by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Govt. of India. It is Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= stated that though it is an autonomous Society, the same is being Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 4 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 fully controlled in all respects by the Government of India. The employees working therein like the applicant are in effect Government servants. The applicant states that in their cases the CCS Rules and FRSR and other Central Civil Service Rules are applicable and SAMEER does not have independent Rules in that behalf in respect of its employees.
2.2. It is submitted that the employees of SAMEER are given pay scale and other service benefits on par with Central Government Employees and on certain matters they even have better benefits prescribed after the said service benefits are adopted by the Governing Council of SAMEER. It is stated that SAMEER is managed by a Governing Council in terms of the bye-laws of SAMEER. The Governing Council is headed by the Union Minister in the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and the Secretary of the Department is the Vice Chairman of the Governing Council. The applicant states that eminent persons from other esteemed organizations holding senior positions like IIT Director, BARC Director, etc. are appointed as members of the Governing Council, besides representatives from the parent Ministry. The Governing Council is the Appellate Authority in respect Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 of matters of the employees working in SAMEER in respect of Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 administrative and disciplinary matters and only in respect of the Senior Scientists who are heading projects or higher levels, the appointing authority is the Governing Council or the President of India in most of the cases.
2.3. It is submitted that the employees of SAMEER have a number of grievances regarding the service conditions, recruitment and promotion policy as well as pay scales and career advancement has been delayed in the majority of the cases of SAMEER and representations have been made by the individual employees in that behalf and also by the SAMEER Employees Association, a Registered Association of the employees working in SAMEER, Mumbai. The number of representations made by the said Association is voluminous and that correspondence on the issues have been going on for a number of years. The applicant states that despite the said representations, no corrective action was being taken to resolve the grievances of the employees mentioned therein.
2.4. It is submitted that the previous Director of SAMEER Dr.Ananta Lal Das was behaving in a very high-handed and autocratic manner during his tenure as Director, SAMEER, Mumbai.
The said Dr.A.L. Das superannuated from service on 31st May, 2015.
Digitally signed by Hemant Anant MahabalDN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 The said Director Dr.A.L. Das was not even willing to address the Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 6 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 genuine grievances of the employees of SAMEER and was not even willing to meet the representatives of the employees though the said grievances were brought to his knowledge repeatedly in writing. The said constant inaction on the part of the Management of SAMEER and especially the then Director Dr.A.L. Das, had led to frustration, low morale and disenchantment among the employees of SAMEER. At the same time the then Director A.L. Das was also misusing his official position for personal gain and was trying to dictate his view point and expected the employees to obey him blindly and not raise issues relating to their grievances at any point of time. The last major representation made by the Employees Association to the Director SAMEER was on 24th January, 2013, requesting the Director to spare some time and address the staff members on the status of the various grievances mentioned therein. It is stated that the letter did not evoke any response from the Director. 2.5. It is submitted that thereafter the office bearers at the behest of all the members of the Association, decided to take up the issue at the next higher level and accordingly a representation dated 04.03.2013 was submitted to the Secretary, Department of Electronics and Information Technology (Deit Y), which was signed Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 by 80 regular employees out of the total strength of 120 regular Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 7 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 employees in SAMEER Mumbai. It is stated that apart from the long pending grievances, various instances of financial irregularities and mismanagement by Dr.A.L. Das for personal gains, was also brought out in this representation.
2.6. It is further submitted that since the grievances were still not being addressed, the employees of SAMEER and the office bearers of Employees Association wanted to meet the then Director Dr.A.L. Das regarding redressal of their said grievances. The Employees Association had requested the Senior Personal Assistant of the Director, Smt.Sandra Pereira for an appointment to meet the Director on 9th April, 2013, with a request to address the employees in the second floor conference room, so that some assurance is given to the employees that their grievances are being looked into.
The employees were expecting at least some positive action from the management of SAMEER and especially its Director Dr.A.L. Das, however, no such action was forthcoming. The Senior Personal Assistant, Smt.Sandra Pereira informed the Director of the request subsequent to which the Director informed her that he was busy but he had asked her to immediately summon Shri Anil Kulkarni who was the Chairperson of the Committee formed to look into the Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 demerging and revision of pay scales for scientific staff below Group Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 8 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 A, with his report. This was one of the major grievances affecting the concerned employees since 1996 on which multiple committee's set up by Director in 2009, 2011 and 2012 had submitted detailed reports with similar positive recommendations, which the Director, in his own wisdom, chose to ignore. The formation of multiple committees without acting on their recommendations was perceived by the affected employees as an attempt to delay and prolong a settlement which only served to increase their frustration. 2.7. It is submitted that the Director, Dr.A.L. Das initially informed them that he was in no mood to discuss all the grievances but subsequently after repeated requests Dr.A.L. Das called for the relevant files and information. The office bearers of the Association had met the Director Dr.A.L. Das in a peaceful manner and they had not resorted to any coercion or pressure tactics against the Director at any point in time. Thereafter other staff members who were waiting downstairs, in anticipation of being addressed by the Director also came to the Director's chamber and peacefully stood there observing the ongoing discussions. The various Heads of Department and the Acting Registrar were also invited by the Director with relevant information and to ascertain their views on the Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 various grievances. The said meeting was a peaceful one and all Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 9 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 the issues regarding the long pending grievances were discussed at length by the employees with the Director and the Department heads. This is also supported by the statements of the senior Scientists and HoD's recorded in the preliminary enquiry by Mrs.Ranade, as also the conclusion recorded therein.
2.8. However, complaint dated 23.4.2013 was sent by the Director, Dr.A.L. Das along with draft copies of the show cause notices and charge-sheet. The action of the Director in drafting show cause notices and charge-sheets in respect of his own complaint, clearly indicates the vindictive attitude of the Director who rather than act on his assurance of resolving the long pending grievances, was already contemplating punitive action against the employees. The said complaint dated 23.4.2013 is different from the complaint dated 10.4.2013 enclosed with the charge-sheet and came to the knowledge of the applicant only recently.
2.9. It is submitted that the said action of the then Director, SAMEER Dr.A.L. Das to write a letter to the Secretary directly, and also enclosing draft copies of show cause notice and charge-sheet, was incorrect and improper. In the first place, Dr.A.L. Das reports to the Governing Council of SAMEER and the Director should have Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 addressed his complaint or grievance to the Governing Council and Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 10 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 not to the Secretary directly. It is stated that under the bye-laws of SAMEER, the Governing Council is the final authority in SAMEER and the action of the then Director, Dr.A.L. Das to write directly to the Secretary amounted to bypassing the Competent Authority which could have looked into the said complaint as well as the grievance of the employees. In any case, the said complaint of the then Director, Dr.A.L. Das was a mala fide complaint since he never had any intention to address the long pending grievances of the employees and he was using this opportunity to harass and further victimise the employees concerned. All communication to him in respect of the charge-sheet was issued by Shri B.M. Baveja, Scientist 'G' and Group Coordinator, DeitY, who looks after the affairs of SAMEER at the Ministry. It is stated that as per the note of Shri B.M. Baveja, which he came across very recently, the Secretry, DeitY in his communication with Director SAMEER advised him to hold a Video Conferencing meeting between Secretary, Director and the Employees to resolve the long pending grievances of employees. It is stated that such a meeting would have definitely helped in ascertaining the widespread discontent prevalent at SAMEER due to the long pending grievances, however, this Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 11 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 suggestion was ignored by Director, SAMEER, thereby clearly indicating his indifferent attitude.
2.10. It is further submitted that since the Disciplinary Authority for the applicant and other employees was the then Director Dr.A.L. Das, the Secretary in the Ministry and the said Shri B.M. Baveja appointed Shri Simon Zachariah, then Senior Director, C-DAC, Trivandrum as the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority in the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the applicant and the other four employees. It is stated that they have not been served with a copy of any document appointing Shri Simon Zachariah as the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority and thus the applicant has been kept in the dark as to who has appointed and what authority has been granted to the said adhoc Disciplinary Authority. This action itself was illegal because the Competent Authority to take such a decision would be an authority higher to the Director of SAMEER viz, the Governing Council which has been kept totally in the dark about the said action.
2.11. It is further submitted that the appointment of Shri Simon Zachariah as adhoc Disciplinary Authority was improper and illegal as it has been done without the mandatory presidential notification required under Rule 12(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. It is further Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 stated that as Shri Simon Zachariah was from another organisation Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 12 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 namely C-DAC and his reporting officer was the Director General of C-DAC, which is not associated with SAMEER, his appointment as ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority is improper as it would create an issue of the hierarchical order (i.e. Appellate Authority etc) applicable to the applicant.
2.12. It is submitted that the applicant repeatedly raised these objections with both Shri Simon Zachariah and Shri B.M. Baveja, however, his objections were ignored. The ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority Shri Simon Zachariah, while ignoring the objections of the applicant to his appointment, went ahead and appointed Shri P.K.S. Pillai, Director (Retd.) and Shri K. Venkat Subramanian, APO (Vigilance) both from the Department of Atomic Energy, as Inquiring Authority and Presenting Officer respectively. This was again an improper action as the Presenting Officer has necessarily to be from the same department as the applicant. The applicant finally received a letter from the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority Shri Simon Zachariah dated 14th August, 2014 stating that "the Presidential Notification is required only when the charged officer happens to be is a Government Servant". The said contention of Shri Simon Zachariah is apparently based on the wrong presumption that the employees Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 of SAMEER are not Government servants. The said contention of Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 13 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 Shri Simon Zachariah is fallacious inasmuch as the employees of SAMEER are covered under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and that the charge-sheet in question which is under challenged in this case has also been issued to the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
2.13. It is stated that the entire action of the respondents to charge sheet the applicant for an alleged incident of 9th April, 2013 is totally illegal and the said action is mala fide and there are no truths in the said allegations. The said disciplinary action is an act of victimisation, high handed action and the said action is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Tribunal.
2.14. The impugned charge-sheet has been challenged on the ground that ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority who had no authority, power or jurisdiction to issue the same. It is contended that the Governing Council of SAMEER which is the highest authority as per the bye-laws of SAMEER has been totally excluded from the entire procedure or steps taken to issue the charge sheet. It is contended that the action taken by the Secretary of the Ministry is again without jurisdiction or power and without the concurrence of the Competent Authority in SAMEER. It is contended that if the Director, SAMEER Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 is himself the complainant the next authority is available in SAMEER Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 14 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 itself viz. the Governing Council. The Secretary of the Ministry cannot directly interfere with the powers available to the Governing Council of SAMEER and the Secretary cannot appoint ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority to issue a charge-sheet based on the complaint of the Director, SAMEER. The entire action of the Secretary is, therefore, totally illegal and the charge-sheet issued based on such illegal action is required to be quashed and set aside. 2.15. It is also contended that the appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority is also improper as it was done without the mandatory Presidential Notification as required by Rule 12(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Therefore, on the basis of averments made and grounds raised in the O.A., the applicant has prayed for quashment of impugned charge-sheet
3. After notice, official respondents no.2 and 3 have filed their reply and contested the O.A. 3.1. It is stated that the Respondent Society has its own Memorandum of Association whereunder the Governing Council has framed its own rules and regulations, bye-laws and service conditions. The Government rules, like CCS (CCA) Rules, are Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 applicable to SAMEER only mutatis mutandis. It is submitted that Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 15 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 the Governing Council is not the Appellate Authority in respect of the employees working in SAMEER. As per Bye-Law No.54, Director, SAMEER is the Appellate Authority for certain employees, Vice President of the Governing Council (Secretary in the Administrative Ministry) is the Appellate Authority for certain employees and Chairman of the Governing Council is the Appellate Authority for Director, SAMEER. Director is the appointing authority even for the senior Scientists.
3.2. It is also stated that the applicant and other employees had entered the room of the Director, SAMEER on 09.04.2013 withoiut his permission. SAMEER's Memorandum dated 28.08.2013 states that the applicant and some other employees had gheraoed Director, SAMEER. An inquiry has been conducted whether the applicant had resorted to gherao of Director, SAMEER on 09.04.2013. The Inquiry Officer has given his report to the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority.
3.3. It is further stated that the applicant has wrongly construed the note dated 23.04.2013 as complaint. The Note dated 23.04.2013 is a proposal for the consideration of the Competent Authority for initiation of disciplinary action against the applicant and four other Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 employees. It is further submitted that the action of the then Director, Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 16 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 SAMEER in submitting the note to the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry, who was also the Vice Chairman, Governing Council, was in the normal course of business under its rules. It is denied that the complaint of the then Director, SAMEER was malafide or suffers from infirmity as alleged. On the contrary an inquiry authority has been appointed by the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority to look into the charges against the applicant.
3.4. It is further submitted that though it was the suggestion of Shri B.M. Baveja, in his note dated 29.04.2013 that Director, SAMEER may organize a video conferencing meeting with SAMEER management and the employees. The suggestion was not one of the proposals approved by the Secretary, Department of Electronics and Information Technology vide his note dated 06.05.2013. It is further stated that in e-mail dated 13.06.2013 also Shri Baveja had asked Director, SAMEER to take action for organizing Video Conferencing meeting with SAMEER management and employees.
In response, Director, SAMEER clarified in his e-mail dated 13.06.2013 that it was suggested in the beginning to hold video conferencing meeting but later on Secretary advised to take action and video conferencing meeting could be done later. So the Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 question of ignoring the suggestion of Shri Baveja does not arise. Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 17 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 3.5. Further, it is submitted that order dated 04.07.2013 issued by Shri Baveja clearly mentions that the Competent Authority has directed that Mr.Simon Zachariah, Senior Director, C-DAC, Thiruvananthapuram should function as ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and four other employees. It is stated that the order dated 04.07.2013 is one of the documents copy of which has been annexed by the applicant, therefore, it is denied that the applicant was not aware or has no information about the appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority as alleged. It is stated that the applicant has been adequately informed about the appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority. 3.6. It is further submitted that Smt.S.R. Ranade, was not nominated by the Director, SAMEER to conduct the preliminary inquiry. The order dated 18.07.2013 clearly mentions that the Competent Authority has nominated Smt.Ranade to conduct a preliminary inquiry. It is submitted that the applicant is confusing preliminary inquiry with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is in the nature of a fact finding inquiry where there can be ex-parte examination or investigation and ex-parte report. The question to be Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 decided at the stage of preliminary inquiry is not whether an Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 18 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 employee is guilty or not of an allegation. It is to be seen whether a prima facie case exists of a certain misconduct/misbehaviour and whether the employee is prima facie involved in it. The applicant's objection to the manner of conduct of the preliminary inquiry is totally baseless.
3.7. It is stated that the applicant has failed to understand the rule in right spirit, while the CCS (CCA) Rules apply to Government employees in toto, they apply to SAMEER employees mutatis mutandis. The Presidential Notification for the appointment of an ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority under Rule 12(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules is applicable only in case of Government employees. SAMEER employees are not Government employees. After the retirement of Shri Simon Zachariah the Competent Authority appointed Shri B. Ramani, Executive Director, C-DAC as the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority vide Department of Electronics and Information Technology's order dated 28.11.2014. It is stated that there is no illegality or procedural lapses in the appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority, Inquiring Authority, Presenting Authority and conduct of inquiry proceedings as alleged or otherwise.
3.8. It is further stated that Clause 4 of the Memorandum of Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Association, the highest Authority of the Respondent Society is the Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 19 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 Governing Council which framed the rules and regulations and adopted the CCS (CCA) Rules mutatis mutandis as more elaborately set out in the said rules and regulations. It is further stated that it is denied that inquiry initiated against the applicant in any manner, vitiated as alleged or denied. It was further denied that ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority was not competent to issue charge- sheet as alleged or otherwise. It is submitted that a representation against the inquiring authority lies with the Disciplinary Authority or the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority, as the case may be. However, the applicant chose to represent the matter to Shri Baveja, who was neither the Disciplinary Authority, nor the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority.
Therefore, on the basis of reply, the official respondents have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
4. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed by the applicant explaining and elaborating his stand by placing on record Rule 20 of C-DAC Bye-
laws. It is stated that under Rule 44 of the SAMEER Bye-laws which was enclosed to the reply, there is no mention found that the CCS (CCA) Rules are applicable to SAMEER only mutatis mutandis. In comparison, another similar Society center for Development of Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Advanced Computing (CDAC), where almost similar bye-laws were Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 20 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 adopted in Rule 20 of the CDAC Rules, which is similar to Rule 44 of the SAMEER Bye-laws, for application of the said CCS (CCA ) Rules mutatis mutandis. It is stated that rules have been properly amended by CDAC, but similar amendment is not done by SAMEER. Therefore, the CCS(CCA) Rules will apply entirely without any modification or amendment and the averments contrary thereto are denied.
5. During the pendency of the present O.A., M.A.1181/2024 was filed by the applicant placing copy of inquiry report dated 28.12.2015 and order dated 25.02.2022 by which penalty of cut of 10% in basic pension as well as gratuity was imposed upon the applicant as during the pendency of the present O.A., applicant retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2019 and by way of said M.A. the applicant has prayed for stay of operation of penalty order dated 25.02.2022.
6. Another M.A. No.699/2023 was filed by the applicant seeking amendment in the O.A. in respect of penalty order dated 25.02.2022 dated 21.07.2023 to which reply dated 27.09.2023 was filed by the respondents contesting the said M.A.No.699/2023 stating that the present O.A. has become infructuous after the order dated Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 25.02.2022 by which punishment is imposed and departmental Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 21 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 proceedings are concluded. Therefore, it is stated that it is necessary for the applicant to take out substantive challenge to the said order.
7. M.A.No.699/2023 was withdrawn by the applicant which is recorded in proceedings dated 23.02.2024 which reads as under:-
"MA No.699/2023: After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present MA. He is permitted to do so. MA is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn."
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Shri V.A. Nagrani, learned counsel for the applicant while challenging the impugned charge-sheet dated 28.08.2013 (Annex-
A-1), vehemently argued that at the first place the appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority was illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that in respect of alleged incident of 09.04.2013 since the Director, SAMEER himself was the complainant and, therefore, the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority was appointed. However, while appointing ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority (Sr.Director, C-DAC, Trivandrum), procedure prescribed under Rule 12(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was not adopted. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel submits that order dated 04.07.2013 (page no.44 of the OA) Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c states that in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Rule (2) of 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 22 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 Rule 12 of CCS (CCA) Rules, the Competent Authority has appointed ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority.
10. It is submitted that as per Rule 12(2), the Chairman, Governing Council was the Competent Authority who could appoint the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority to Sr. Director, C-DAC, Trivandrum, but in the present case it has come on record that the Sr. Director, C-DAC, Trivandrum was appointed as an ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority by the Secretary (Vice Chairman) and not by the Chairman, Governing Council and since the appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority itself was contrary to the rules and, therefore, subsequent actions including the charge-sheet is bad in law and liable to be set aside.
11. He has further submitted that the stand of the respondents in their reply in fact supports the contention of the applicant as subsequently ex-post-facto sanction was sought from the Chairman, Governing Council meaning thereby the initial action of appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority by the Vice Chairman (Secretary to the Government of India) was not in accordance with the Rule 12(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
12. During course of arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India and another, reported in Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 23 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 (2021) 20 SCC 12, that post-facto approval cannot rectify initial action. He has further submitted that the charge-sheet was also liable to be quashed on the ground that same has not approved and issued by the Competent Authority and, therefore, on the basis of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Others vs. B.V. Gopinath, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351, the impugned charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned charge-sheet and all consequential actions are liable to be quashed.
13. On the other side, Shri Helekar, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that in respect of incident of Gherao of the Director, SAMEER on 09.04.2013, the matter was reported by the Director, SAMEER to the higher authority and since the Director, SAMEER himself was the complainant and, therefore, in all fairness while following due procedure, the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority was appointed vide order dated 04.07.2013 to one Sr. Director, C-DAC, Trivandrum to hold the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and other officials who were part of the said Gherao.
14. The order dated 04.07.2013 clearly mentions that the order of Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority was issued by the Competent Authority Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 24 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 under sub-Rule 2 of Rule 12 of CCS (CCA) Rules. It is further submitted that thereafter ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority based upon the preliminary inquiry issued the charge-sheet to the applicant. It is submitted that the SAMEER is an autonomous institution, having its own rules, regulations and bye-laws and the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules are applicable mutatis mutandis. The applicant is not a Government employee.
15. To buttress the submission of mutatis mutandis, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Ashok Service Centre and Others vs. State of Orissa, reported in (1983) 2 SCC 82, (Para
17) in the case of Pralhad Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 113, (para 10 and 11) case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Another vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and Another, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470, (on Para 17 and 18).
On that basis, it is the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the contention of the applicant since there is no Presidential order under Rule 12(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority is without jurisdiction is Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 not tenable. He submitted that the bye-law 54 of the SAMEER Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 25 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 provides Disciplinary Authority. The post of the applicant in the aforesaid schedule finds place at Sr.No.2 and the Director is the appointing authority and the Disciplinary Authority for the said post / level, whereas the Vice Chairman, Governing Council is the Appellate Authority. Since the Director himself was the complainant in the present case and, therefore, the higher authority of the Director, i.e. Vice Chairman, Governing Council has rightly appointed Sr. Director of C-DAC as the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 04.07.2013.
16. Further, the charge-sheet was also approved and issued by the Competent Authority i.e. ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for applicant in case of B.V. Gopinath (supra) is not applicable in the present set of facts as in the said case employee concerned was a Group 'A' employee of which the appointing authority was the Hon'ble President. Whereas in the present case, the applicant's appointing and Disciplinary Authority ii.e. the Director as per the bye-
laws and not the Chairman, Governing Council. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the respondents there is no ground available to quash the impugned charge-sheet on the ground of Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 without jurisdiction.
Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 26 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016
17. Learned counsel for the respondents while referring to various other judgments on the point that during the pendency of the present O.A. the disciplinary proceedings were concluded and punishment order has been passed and since the applicant at his own did not participated in the departmental inquiry and, therefore, the applicant cannot make a submission in respect of violation of principles of natural justice during the course of inquiry and since the applicant has not challenged the inquiry proceedings or the punishment order, therefore, at this stage interference in the impugned charge-sheet is contrary to law and proceedings are not permissible.
18. In counter arguments/reply, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the very appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority is under challenge, in the present O.A. along with impugned charge-sheet on the ground of jurisdiction and, therefore, the contention of the respondents is not tenable. It is further submitted that in spite of basic challenge to the appointment of Disciplinary Authority and charge-sheet on the ground of jurisdiction, the Inquiry Officer has proceeded in hot haste manner against the applicant exparte and submitted the inquiry report and thereafter punishment order dated 25.02.2022 was issued. Further, Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 the applicant has filed M.A.1181/2024 on 14.11.2024 by placing on Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 27 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 record the inquiry report and punishment order dated 25.02.2022. However, since this Tribunal was not pleased to stay the penalty order and, therefore, M.A.699/2023 was filed for amendment in the O.A., which was also objected by the respondents by filing reply and, therefore, the said M.A. was withdrawn by the applicant vide proceedings dated 23.02.2024. Therefore, submission of the learned counsel for respondents are not tenable.
19. After hearing learned counsels for the parties following two points requires consideration by this Tribunal :
(a) whether the appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority of Shri Simon Zachariah was in accordance with law?
(b) whether the impugned memorandum (charge-sheet dated 28.08.2013 (Annex-A-1) is liable to be quashed?
20. To decide the point (a) & (b), it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Memorandum of Association Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws of the "Society for Applied Microwave Electronics Engineering & Research"
(SAMEER), Autonomous Scientific Society under Department of Information Technology (DIT). Rule 8, 9 and 12 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 reads as under:-Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 28 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 "Rule 8. Appointments to Group 'A' Services and Posts All appointments to Central Civil Services, Group 'A' and Central Civil Posts, Group 'A' shall be made by the President:
Provided that the President may, by a general or a special order and subject to such conditions as he may specify in such order, delegate to any other authority the power to make such appointments.
Rule 9. Appointments to other Services and Posts (1) All appointments to the Central Civil Services (other than the General Central Service) Group 'B', Group 'C' and Group 'D' shall be made by the authorities specified in this behalf in the Schedule:
Provided that in respect of Group 'C' and Group 'D', Civilian Services, or civilian posts in the Defence Services appointments may be made by officers empowered in this behalf by the aforesaid authorities.
(2) All appointments to Central Civil Posts, Group 'B', Group 'C' and Group 'D', included in the General Central Service shall be made by the authorities specified in that behalf by a general or special order of the President, or where no such order has been made, by the authorities, specified in this behalf in the Schedule.
.....
Rule 12. Disciplinary Authorities (1) The President may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 on any Government servant.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4), any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 may be imposed on-
(a) a member of a Central Civil Service other than the General Central Service, by the Appointing Authority Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= or the authority specified in the schedule in this 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 29 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 behalf or by any other authority empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the President;
(b) a person appointed to a Central Civil Post included in the General Central Service, by the authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the President or, where no such order has been made, by the Appointing Authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this behalf.
21. Relevant Rules and Regulations of SAMEER reads as under:-
"2. Definitions In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires:
2(b) The "Council" means the Governing Council of the Society. ....
2(f) The "Director" means the Chief Executive of the Society.
....
4. The Council The Council shall consists of not less than six and not more than thirteen members to be constituted as under:
i. The Minister, CIT, Government of India ii. The Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India, New Delhi iii. Additional Secretary, Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India.
iv. Joint Secretary & Financial Advisor, Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India. v. Group Coordinator, Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India.Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 30 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 vi. Joint Secretary (Societies), Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Govt. of India.
vii. Director, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai.
viii. Three Eminent Scientists/Technologist from user Departments (Defence, Space and Atomic Energy etc) ix. Two Professionals from Industry x. Director, SAMEER The members at serial nos. viii & ix shall be nominated with the approval of the Chairman of the Council. The Council may invite any functionary of the Society to the meeting where considered necessary.
5. Chairman of the Council The Minister, MCIT, Government of India will be the Chairman of the Council.
6. Vice-Chairman of the Council The Secretary to the Govt. of India, Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Government of India will be the Vice-Chairman of the Council.
....
16. Bye-laws 16.1. The Council may frame Bye-Laws from time to time not inconsistent with these Rules for the general administration and management of the Society, and may in particular provide for the following:
16(c) Term and tenure of appointments, emoluments, allowances and other conditions of service of the officers and employees of the Society including conduct rules with the approval of the administrative ministry.Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= ....
44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 31 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 16.2. The Bye-laws framed under these Rules will be broadly patterned on the guidelines provided by the administrative ministry.
The Council shall have the power to make amendments to these Rules and Bye-laws with approval of the administrative ministry.
16.3. Bye-laws framed by the Council in pursuance of Rule 16 as above shall continue to be in force until they are superseded by bye-laws framed by the Council in pursuance of these Rules.
....
19. Powers of Delegation of the Director The Director shall be the Chief Executive of the society and shall manage the affairs of the Society in conformance to the authority and powers vested in him.
....
27. Alteration of Rules These Rules may be altered, added to and modified by the Council as and when necessary, with the approval of the administrative ministry and the Rules (so altered, added to and modified) shall operate from such date as shall be notified."
Relevant Bye-laws of SAMEER reads as under:
"5.6. Chairman of the meeting:
The Chairman of the Council shall preside all meetings of the Council. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman of the Council shall preside over the meeting.
....
33. Appointment of Scientific & Technical Staff Subject to the provisions of Rule 19, the appointment of engineers and scientists for the Centre above a certain grade (to be specified by the Committee) shall be approved by the Council and below the specified grade, shall be made by the Chief Executive or by an Officer to whom the power has been delegated by him under Bye-law no.54 for a period normally not exceeding three years at a time for all grades.Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= ....
44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 32 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016
44. CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES Employees of SAMEER shall be governed by the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 of the Government of India in force and amended from time to time.
....
54. Disciplinary Authority Disciplinary authority as specified below or authority higher than it, may impose any of the penalties specified:
SL. Level Appointing Discipli- Extent of Appellate NO Authority nary power of Authority Authority Disciplinary Authority to Impose penalties A B C D E F 1 Director Vice Vice All penalties Chairman, Chairman, Chairman, GC Governing GC Council 2 Executives with Director Director All penalties Vice pay scale Chairman, Rs.8,000 - GC 13,500 and above 3 Executive in the Registrar Registrar All penalties Director scale of pay Rs.5500-175-
9000 and 6500- 200 4 Others Registrar Registrar All penalties Director
22. Looking to the aforesaid provisions, firstly the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents that since the Respondent Association has its own Memorandum of Association and, therefore, Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal the governing rules like CCS (CCA) Rules are applicable to DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal SAMEER mutatis mutandis. Whereas, the contention of learned 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 33 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 counsel for the applicant is that SAMEER adopted CCS (CCA) Rules and, therefore, while appointing the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority and issuing the charge-sheet, Rule 12(2) and 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules were required to be followed in toto.
23. Bye-law 44 of the SAMEER extracted above clearly states that employees of SAMEER shall be governed by the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 of the Government of India in force and amended from time to time. This provision no where states that provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules are applicable mutatis mutandis. Further any provision, rule or bye-law is required to be read as it is and nothing can be added or subtracted there from. Under these circumstances, the contention raised by the respondents is liable to be rejected
24. Now the question arises when there is CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which are adopted by the SAMEER and the Rules and Regulations and Bye-laws of the SAMEER are also available, then how it should be read or made applicable to the issue involved in the present set of facts. Suffice it to say that in such a situation there should be harmonious construction/reading of relevant provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules and Regulations and Bye-laws of SAMEER is to Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 be made.
Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 34 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016
25. When the Bye-laws 54 of the Society specifically provides Disciplinary Authority in respect of their officers/employees as per the level/post, then the provisions of Rule 12(2) and Rule 14 (2) & (3) of CCS (CCA) Rules are required to be taken as a procedural provision and power of specified authority is to be read from Bye-
law 54. In the present case, the applicant was holding the post of Scientist 'C'. The said post / level finds place at Sr.No.2 in Bye-law 54 to which the appointing and Disciplinary Authority is Director and the Appellate Authority is Vice-Chairman, Governing Council. Since the Director himself was the complainant and, therefore, there was cause or occasion to appoint other ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority.
26. At this stage it is relevant here to mention that during course of arguments, the respondents have placed on record note-sheets of File No.3(1)/2013-SAMEER, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and chronology of events which shows that proposal to appoint Sr. Director , C-DAC to function as ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority and his consent was recorded in proceedings on 14.06.2013 to which the Secretary has given approval on 24.06.2013 which was communicated by order dated 04.07.2013 (page no.44 of the OA). Therefore, whether the approval given by Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 35 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 the Secretary (Vice-Chairman) on 24.06.2013 is in accordance with Rule 12(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules or not?
27. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of the argument of learned counsel for the applicant based upon DGP&T Memo dated 07.08.1959, which reads as under:
(2) When President's power for nominating an ad hoc Disciplinary Authority to be invoked. - (i) When the Appointing Authority is higher in rank.- The terms used in the Constitution and the CCS (CCA) Rules, viz., "Subordinate to" or "lower than" the Appointing Authority refer to subordination in rank and not to that of function. In view of the provisions referred to above, the authority who has been prescribed in the schedule to CCS (CCA) Rules as the Disciplinary Authority for imposition of major penalties in respect of a grace shall not impose any of these penalties on an official of that grade if he was actually appointed to that grade by an authority who is higher in rank or grade than the former authority.
For example, an official who was appointed by an officer of the Junior Time-scale of the Indian Postal Service, Group 'A', while holding charge of a Division cannot be punished with any of the major penalties by an officer of the PSS Group 'B', though holding charge of the same Division. Any such orders passed by a lower authority are void and liable to be set aside. When these punishment orders are declared void by the Court or are set aside by the Appellate Authority or by the President due to violation of constitutional / statutory provision, Government have to incur unnecessary expenditure in the shape of arrears of pay and allowances. It is therefore, desirable that before any action is initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules, with a view to imposing any of the major penalties on an official, it should first be verified by the present Disciplinary Authority whether or not he is lower in rank than the officer who actually appointed the official. In case the Appointing Authority is of higher rank than the present Disciplinary Authority, the fact should be reported to the Department / Ministry concerned for issue of President's orders nominating another officer to act as the Disciplinary Authority in that particular case. While reporting the matter to Government, a specific Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= recommendation as to the officer who may be nominated to act as Hemant Anant the Disciplinary Authority should be made. 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 36 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 These instructions may kindly be circulated to all Disciplinary Authorities for strict observance to ensure that punishment orders are passed only by the Competent Authorities."
28. On the basis of aforesaid Memorandum it is contended that since there is no nomination from the Hon'ble President for appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority and, therefore, the appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority in the present case is contrary to the aforesaid OM and Rule 12(2). To appreciate aforesaid argument, Rule 8 of CCS (CCA) Rules specifically provides appointment to Group 'A' Services and Posts and Rule 9 about appointments to other Services and Posts. Rule 9(2)(a) provides that appointment to Central Civil post, Group 'B', Group 'C' and Group 'D', included in the Central Civil Service shall be made by the authorities specified in that behalf by a general or special order of the President, or where no such order has been made, by the authorities specified in this behalf in the Schedule. Further, Rule 12(2) provides that penalties in Rule 11 may be imposed by the Appointing Authority or the other authority specified in the schedule in this behalf or any other authority empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the President and Rule 12(2) (b) provides that such penalty can be imposed by authorities specified in this Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c behalf by a general or special order of the President or where no 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 37 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 such order has been made, by the Appointing Authority or the authorities specified in the schedule in this behalf. Conjoined reading of Rule 9 and Rule 12(2)(b), it is clear that when there is no general or special order of the President then either Appointing Authority or the Authority specified in the schedule in this behalf are empowered. By taking procedural part, Rule 12(2)(b) along with Bye-law 54, it can be held that Vice Chairman (Secretary), Governing Council was competent to appoint ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority as the opening of Bye-law 54 provides as specified below or authority higher than it, meaning thereby when the Appointing / Disciplinary Authority of the applicant i.e. Director was himself complainant, therefore, his next higher authority as per the aforesaid schedule of Bye-law 54 was the Vice Chairman, Governing Council (Secretary) and, therefore, next higher authority Vice-Chairman, (Secretary) has rightly approved and appointed the additional ad-
hoc Disciplinary Authority, because the Bye-law 54 clearly provides that Disciplinary Authority as specified below or authority higher than, it cannot be disputed that the Vice-Chairman, Governing Council is the higher authority than the Director. Therefore, approval given by Secretary as Vice Chairman, Governing Council was Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 proper.
Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 38 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016
29. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that after retirement of earlier ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority at the time of subsequent appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority, the Chairman, Governing Council has granted post-facto approval itself shows that the earlier appointment of Shri Simon Zachariah, Sr. Director was illegal, is concerned, the said argument does not hold the field as the requirement of law provided in Bye-
law 54 which complied with while appointing ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority initially. In fact, there was no requirement of post-facto approval. If at the subsequent stage the Department has taken some additional safe guard by taking post-facto approval, then that cannot be taken against the Department to hold that initial appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority was not proper in view of post-facto approval. It is only to be seen that whether the appointment of ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority was in accordance with Rules or not. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, Point (a) decided in favour of the Department holding that there is no illegality in appointment of Shri Simon Zachariah, Sr. Direcotor, C-DAC as a Disciplinary Authority.
30. So far as the approval of charge-sheet under 14(2) and 14(3) Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 is concerned, in case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Rukma Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 39 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 Kesh Mishra, in Civil Appeal No.____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19223/2024 decided on 28.03.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-
"17. It is not in dispute that at the time the appellants resolved to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, the 1930 Rules were in force. The Single Judge noticed this fact, although the Division Bench has not adverted to it. Under the 1930 Rules, disciplinary proceedings could be initiated in terms of Rule 5513 thereof. The effect that Rule 55 would have on the merits of the plea raised by the respondent, in the ultimate analysis, is what appears to be clinching.
18. Bare perusal of Rule 55 reveals that it does not expressly specify the authority, who is competent to issue the charge- sheet. On the contrary, the decisions of this Court in B.V. Gopinath (supra) and Promod Kumar (supra) dealt with different rules which expressly specified who could issue the charge-sheet. We have noted with some measure of disappointment that long-standing precedents of this Court,
55. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement Vide Notification no.13213-A, dated the 17th October, 1957 (or reduction) shall be passed on a member of a Service (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court or by a Court- Martial) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and on any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires or if the authority concerned so direct an oral inquiry shall be held. At that inquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 40 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 he may wish, provided that the officer, conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. *** which did lend sustenance to the impugned charge-sheet, were neither placed before the Division Bench nor the Single Judge for consideration. This is one reason why we are persuaded to interfere.
19. Respondent was a member of the civil service of the State. Thus, he could legitimately claim that the safeguards enshrined in Article 311 of the Constitution be scrupulously followed prior to ordering his dismissal including drawing up a charge-sheet in the manner required by the relevant law.
20. It would, therefore, be profitable to note what is the law declared by this Court on the point as to who can issue the charge-sheet.
21. As far back as in 1970, this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh14 held that Article 311(1) does not in terms require that the authority empowered by that provision to dismiss or remove an officer should initiate or conduct the inquiry. This decision could count as the parent decision on the topic, declaring the law in paragraphs '6' and '10'. The said paragraphs are quoted below for ease of understanding as to how Article 311(1) was construed:
"6. Article 311(1) provides that no person who is a member of Civil Service of the Union or of an All-India Service or Civil Service of a State or holds civil post under the Union or State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. This Article does not in terms require that the authority empowered under that provision to dismiss or remove an official, should itself initiate or conduct the enquiry preceding the dismissal or removal of the officer or even that that enquiry should be done at its instance. The only right guaranteed to a civil servant under that provision is that he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (1970) 1 SCC 108 But it is said on behalf of Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, the respondent that that guarantee includes within itself the guarantee that the relevant disciplinary inquiry SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 41 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 should be initiated and conducted by the authorities mentioned in the Article. The High Court has accepted this contention. We have now to see whether the view taken by the High Court is correct.
***
10. But for the incorporation of Article 311 in the Constitution even in respect of matters provided therein, rules could have been framed under Article 309. The provisions in Article 311 confer additional rights on the civil servants. Hence we are unable to agree with the High Court that the guarantee given under Article 311(1) includes within itself a further guarantee that the disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal or removal of a civil servant should also be initiated and conducted by the authorities mentioned in that Article".
(emphasis supplied)
22. Then came the decision in P. V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General, where this Court reiterated that a departmental proceeding need not be initiated only by the appointing authority and that initiation by a subordinate authority, in the absence of rules, is not vitiated. We consider it appropriate to extract paragraph '4' hereunder:
"4. Article 311(1) says that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds civil post under the Union or a State "shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed". Whether this guarantee includes within itself the guarantee that even the disciplinary proceeding should be initiated only by the appointing authority? It is well known that departmental proceeding consists of several stages: the initiation of the proceeding, the inquiry in respect of the charges levelled against that delinquent officer and the final order which is passed after the conclusion of the inquiry. Article 311(1) guarantees that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. But Article 311(1) does not say that even Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority. However, it is open to Union of SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 42 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 India or a State Government to make any rule prescribing that even the proceeding against any delinquent officer shall be initiated by an officer not subordinate to the appointing authority. Any such rule shall not be inconsistent with Article 311 of the Constitution because it will amount to providing an additional safeguard or protection to the holder of a civil 1993 (1) SCC 419 post. But in absence of any such rule, this right or guarantee does not flow from Article 311 of the Constitution. It need not be pointed out that initiation of a departmental proceeding per se does not visit the officer concerned with any evil consequences, and the framers of the Constitution did not consider it necessary to guarantee even that to holders of civil posts under the Union of India or under the State Government. At the same time this will not give right to authorities having the same rank as that of the officer against whom proceeding is to be initiated to take a decision whether any such proceeding should be initiated. In absence of a rule, any superior authority who can be held to be the controlling authority, can initiate such proceeding".
(emphasis supplied)
23. Yet again, in Transport Commissioner v. A. Radhakrishna Moorthy, this Court clearly declared the law as follows:
"8. Insofar as initiation of enquiry by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority is concerned, it is well settled now that it is unobjectionable. The initiation can be by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. Only the dismissal/removal shall not be by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. Accordingly it is held that this was not a permissible ground for quashing the charges by the Tribunal".
(emphasis supplied)
24. All these decisions were considered by this Court in Inspector General of Police v. Thavasippan17, and it was ruled as follows:
"9. ... Generally speaking, it is not necessary that the Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, charges should be framed by the authority competent to award the proposed penalty or that the enquiry should SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 43 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 be conducted by such authority. We do not find anything in the rules which would induce us to read in Rule 3(b)(i) such a requirement. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal that in a case falling under Rule 3(b) the charge memo should be issued by the disciplinary authority empowered to impose the penalties referred to therein and if the charge memo is issued by any lower authority then only that penalty can be imposed which that lower authority is competent to award, is clearly erroneous. We, therefore, allow this appeal". ...
(emphasis supplied)
25. Later decisions of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu v. S. Vel Raj18 and Commissioner of Police v. Jayasurian also declare the law in the same vein, albeit in respect of different discipline and appeal rules, that a charge- sheet need not be issued by the appointing authority; any other authority, who is the controlling authority, can initiate departmental proceedings by issuing a chargesheet.
26. At this stage, we are reminded of the Latin phrase stare decisis et non queta movere meaning, stand by what has been decided and do not disturb what has been settled. While it is true that courts are not restrained by any principle of law from expressing a different view on a point of law or to distinguish precedents (a topic we wish to advert to briefly a little later), stare decisis need not be disregarded to unsettle settled positions. We would read these precedents (referred to in paragraphs 21 to 25, supra) as settling the law that unless the relevant discipline and appeal rules applicable to an officer/employee of an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution so require, disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a charge-sheet cannot be faulted solely on the ground that either the Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority has not issued the same or approved it. These precedents have stood the test of time and having full application to the case at hand, could not have been lightly overlooked. A holistic consideration of all these precedents by the High Court was certainly the need of the hour. Thavasippan (supra) had considered the precedents in Shardul Singh (supra), P. V. Srinivasa Sastry (supra) and A. Radhakrishna Moorthy (supra) and P. V. Srinivasa Sastry (supra) was placed before the coordinate Bench in B.V. Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Gopinath (supra). We are anchored in a belief that had the 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 44 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 High Court looked into these precedents, the conclusion would have certainly been otherwise.
27. Be that as it may, the governing rules in B.V. Gopinath (supra) and Promod Kumar (supra) being different, notwithstanding the similarity in language of Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 196520 and Rule 17(3) of the 2016 Rules, reliance placed by the Division Bench on the ratio of the said two decisions seems to be wholly inapt. An erroneous conclusion was arrived at contrary to the settled position of law and we have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order is manifestly flawed and hence, unsustainable.
ON FACTS, WAS THERE ANY INFIRMITY IN INITIATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS?
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that :-
"WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND WHO SHOULD 'DRAW UP' OR 'CAUSE TO DRAW UP' THE CHARGE-SHEET?
33. The final reason for interdicting the impugned order stems from non-consideration of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India in its correct perspective by the Division Bench. If one looks at Article 311(1), the sole safeguard that it provides to any member, inter alia, of a civil service of a State or the holder of a civil post under the State is that he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed (emphasis supplied). Clause (1) does not on its own terms require that the disciplinary proceedings should also be initiated by the appointing authority. This is what Shardul Singh (supra) and P.V. Srinivasa Sastry (supra) have articulated, with which we wholeheartedly agree.
34. The Division Bench noticed that Rule 17(3) of the 2016 Rules were pari materia Rule 14(3) of the 1965 Rules and, therefore, what was held in paragraph '41' of the decision in B.V. Gopinath (supra) would clearly be applicable to resolve the controversy at hand. In B.V. Gopinath (supra), certain office memoranda were under consideration apart from Rule 14(3) of the 1965 Rules. Submissions advanced on behalf of Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= the charged officers, recorded in paragraphs '20' and '21', 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 45 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 would reveal that the Court was addressed with regard to the fact situation where approval to initiate disciplinary proceedings had been obtained but subsequent thereto, the charge-sheet that was drawn up had not been approved by the Finance Minister. This is where the Division Bench again committed a clear error in failing to appreciate the facts, which bear vital importance. As noted above, in the present case, the draft charge-sheet was there on record when the Chief Minister accorded his approval and there appears to be no valid reason as to why approval of the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent would not be regarded as grant of approval to the draft charge-sheet too. We are unhesitatingly of the view that according approval to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, in this case, did amount to approval of the draft charge-sheet.
35. It has been observed by this Court in several decisions that each decision is an authority for what it decides and not what could logically be deduced therefrom. Mechanical reliance on precedents, as if they are statutes, has been deprecated. Whenever a precedent is cited laying down a principle of law having application to the facts of the case in hand and having binding effect, it is customary and expected of courts to be bound by the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. However, the courts are free not to place blind reliance on whatever precedent is cited by the parties since facts of two cases are not seldom alike. It is the duty of the court, if it considers the precedent not to be applicable, to refer to factual dissimilarities that are found and thereafter to distinguish the precedent cited before it by assigning brief but cogent reasons. It is always well to remember in this context the dictum of this Court in Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India v. Pawan Kumar Dubey:
"7. ...It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts".Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 46 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016
36. Since invocation of the provisions in Discipline and Appeal Rules similar to Rule 14(3) of the 1965 Rules or Rule 17(3) of the 2016 Rules and citing failure to adhere to the same to invalidate orders terminating services of officers/employees is not too infrequent, we consider it proper to briefly touch upon the requirement thereof. The Disciplinary Authority is mandated by the law to 'draw up' or 'cause to be drawn up' the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior as a definite and distinct article of charge together with the statement of such imputations. The phrases 'draw up' and 'cause to be drawn up' do have different meanings in the context of disciplinary proceedings, though both relate to drawing up of a charge-sheet. By 'draw up', what is express is that the Disciplinary Authority itself is responsible for preparing the substance of imputation and the statement of allegations in support thereof, whereas 'cause to be drawn' could enable the Disciplinary Authority to instruct or direct someone else to prepare the substance and statement. The effect of it is that the Disciplinary Authority itself may not prepare the document but rather delegate the task to someone else. If the delegation is proved to have been made in favour of an authority holding anoffice superior to that of the officer/employee proposed to be proceeded against, nothing much is required to be done and the courts ought to exercise restraint.
37. Lest confusion continues to prevail, thereby obfuscating the course of justice, we also consider it expedient to clarify as regards the efficacy of the decisions in B.V. Gopinath (supra) and Promod Kumar (supra) as binding precedents. Both these decisions by coordinate Benches of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court. All other decisions on the topic are also by Benches of coordinate strength. Before the Bench in B.V. Gopinath (supra), out of the 6 (six) decisions referred to by us in paragraphs 21 to 25 (supra), only the decision in Thavasippan (supra) was placed by counsel wherein one would find reference to the earlier decision in P.V. Srinivasa Sastry (supra). Though Thavasippan (supra) had considered all the earlier decisions, it was not even distinguished in B.V. Gopinath (supra). Importantly, the Bench after noting the law laid down in P.V. Srinivasa Sastry (supra), extracted two sentences from paragraph '4', quoted above, to support the conclusion which the Bench intended to record. Having read Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, what P.V. Srinivasa Sastry (supra) in paragraph '4' laid down and our agreement therewith, we see good reason to opine SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 47 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 that there could be a healthy debate on the correctness of the ratio decidendi of the decision in B.V. Gopinath (supra), or for that matter, Promod Kumar (supra), in the light of the precedents which were binding on the Benches deciding the same. However, for the purpose of deciding this appeal, we need not venture that far to declare the decisions in B.V. Gopinath (supra) and Promod Kumar (supra) as not laying down good law or that its efficacy as binding precedents stands eroded for not considering the law declared in Shardul Singh (supra) on Article 311 (1) of the Constitution, as well as the other decisions that we have referred to above, speaking in a different voice. Nonetheless, we are of the undoubted view that whatever be the ratio decidendi of B.V. Gopinath (supra) and Promod Kumar (supra), for its application in future cases, the same have to be read and understood as confined to interpretation of the rules governing the disciplinary proceedings in each of the two cases, the facts and law presented before the coordinate Benches, and the exposition of law by this Court for over half a century till this date.
38. Turning focus once again to the factual narrative, it is worthy of being noted that it was the Cabinet which approved the proposal to dismiss the respondent. Respondent's service having been terminated based on such approval, the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench should have been loath to hold the dismissal illegal on acceptance of the specious plea raised by the respondent by its misplaced reliance on B.V. Gopinath (supra) and Promod Kumar (supra)."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. R. Shankarappa, Civil Appeal --- of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7149 of 2023) decided on 25.07.2025 in Para 18, observed as under:-
"18. This Court has carefully considered the judgment delivered in the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra). The aforesaid case was in respect of an IRS Officer Mr.B.V. Gopinath who was appointed as an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, and Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= the grievance raised was that the charge-sheet against him was Hemant Anant not approved by the Finance Minister, whereas, an office order 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document dated 19.07.2005 contained a requirement of such approval. In Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 48 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 the present case, there is no such office order in respect of Department of Telecommunication and the statutory provisions governing the field also do not provide for any such approval from the Member, Telecommunications Commission. In the present case, the guilt of the appellant after following due process of law has been established. The inquiry does not suffer from any procedural irregularity and the charge-sheet has been issued by the competent disciplinary authority. The final order has been passed after following the due process of law by the competent disciplinary authority empowered to inflict major penalty and, therefore, the CAT has rightly dismissed the Original Application preferred by the respondent herein and the order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside.."
Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it is held that there is no ground available to interfere in the impugned charge-sheet.
32. During the course of the present O.A., departmental inquiry was conducted and concluded exparte against the applicant by imposing the punishment. Although by way of amendment application, applicant had prayed for amendment, however, the said application was objected by the respondents and ultimately withdrawn by the applicant. But fact remains that the applicant was prosecuting the present O.A. challenging the charge-sheet itself on available legal grounds and in fact while opposing the application for amendment it was stated by the respondents that it is necessary for the applicant to take out substantive challenge to the said order meaning thereby there is no quarrel with applicant's right to challenge the punishment order on all available grounds and, Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= therefore, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondents 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 49 OA No.67, 68, 69, 70 & 71/2016 contending and submitting that to uphold the punishment order in the present proceeding / O.A. is not tenable. Thus, while upholding the charge-sheet, applicant is free to challenge the impugned punishment order on all available grounds before the appropriate authority / forum in accordance with law.
33. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, so far as challenge made to the charge-sheet fails, however, the applicant is at liberty to challenge the punishment order in accordance with law.
34. With the above, the O.A. stands disposed of, with no order as to costs.
35. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
36. The directions / observations made in preceding paragraph no.33 is also applicable in respect of other OAs.
(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)
Member (J) Member (A).
H
Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=3273, OID.2.5.4.65= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, Phone= Hemant Anant 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c 7dc7a126121, PostalCode=400602, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a02290960 Mahabal 724113109, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.25 17:48:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0