Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Rajesh Kumar Singh vs Administrative Reforms And Public ... on 19 December, 2025
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00385 of 2025
Order reserved on: 09.12.2025
Order pronounced on: 19.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Rajesh Kumar Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Shri Yogendra
Singh, R/o A-1/88, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. (IAS)
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Vishwajit Singh Senior Advocate Assisted by
Shri Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lok Bhawan,
Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
Shri S. S. Rajawat
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to charge sheet in departmental proceedings, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"1. To quash the impugned memorandum dated 27.04.2023 (contained as Annexure No. A-1 to this OA) all consequential benefits.
2. The Hon‟ble Tribunal may direct the opposite parties to promote the applicant to the apex scale from the date 30 th June, 2024 giving him parity with his batch mates and also direct the opposite parties to give all consequential benefits to which the applicant is entitled from 30 th June, 2024.Page 1 of 18
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors
3. Any other relief, which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
4. Cost of the present case."
2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant, an officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service borne on Uttar Pradesh cadre, was proceeded against departmentally with the issue of memorandum, or charge sheet, dated 27.04.2023 by respondent no. 1 under rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, alleging that the applicant, in contravention of the written directions received from Department of Heavy Industry (now Ministry of Heavy Industries), Government of India, filed 'no objection' to the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI, hereafter) before the Special (CBI) Court No. 2, Calcutta on 01.09.2018, i.e., he did not defend the interest of Department of Heavy Industry, Government of India. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
2.2 The background of the present controversy is that the applicant, while posted as Joint Secretary (JS, hereafter) in the then Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry (now Ministry of Heavy Industries) was also functioning as Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO, hereafter) from 11.12.2014 to 04.10.2016 and in that capacity, with approval of the competent authority, he had referred a matter to CBI for investigation in the complaints made by one person against the ex-Chairman & Managing Director, Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. A first information report was lodged by CBI and a case under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered in the matter. After investigation, CBI submitted a closure report in the Special (CBI) Court No. 2, Calcutta. The Special (CBI) Court issued notice to the applicant as he was the complainant in the matter which he forwarded to JS & CVO of Department of Heavy Page 2 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors Industry for necessary action as the applicant was working under the State Government of Uttar Pradesh as Commissioner, Moradabad at that point of time. The Department of Heavy Industry applied to the Special (CBI) Court for substitution of the applicant with the serving JS & CVO of the Department as the applicant had already demitted office. The Special (CBI) Court, vide order dated 19.07.2018, did not accept the plea for substitution. The Department of Heavy Industry, then, vide letter dated 20.08.2018 requested the applicant to appear before the Special (CBI) Court on 01.09.2018 to present its views. The applicant, informing the Special (CBI) Court that he had demitted office of CVO in the Department of Heavy Industry, submitted 'no objection' to the report filed by CBI in that Court on 01.09.2018. The respondent no. 1 alleged that the applicant had acted in contravention to written direction issued by the Department of Heavy Industry resulting in the issue of the impugned charge sheet dated 27.04.2023. 3.1 The applicant has assailed the charge sheet dated 27.04.2023 on three grounds. The first ground is that there was no direction or instruction from the Department of Heavy Industry; there was only a request made through the letter dated 20.08.2018 to appear before the Special (CBI) Court on 01.09.2018 and to present the views of the Department as encapsulated in the demi official letter addressed to the Joint Director, CBI, Kolkata. It is further contended that the letter dated 20.08.2018 to the Joint Director, CBI, Kolkata itself stated that the Department of Heavy Industry has not been able to take any view of the matter in the absence of the complete investigation report. It is also contended that the 'no objection' given by the applicant on 01.09.2018 in the Special (CBI) Court was in his personal capacity on the ground that he was no more in charge of the post of JS & CVO. It is contended that thus the charge is itself vague and based on surmises and Page 3 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors conjectures. In support, judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Chaman Lal Goyal 1995 (2) SCC 570 and in Ministry of Defence vs P C Mirdha 2012 (Vol 11) SCC 565 are cited. 3.2 The second objection of the applicant is that the charge sheet is hit by delay as it has been issued more than four years after the applicant's deposition in the Special (CBI) Court. In support, the applicant cites the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P V Mahadevan vs M D Tamilnadu Housing Board 2005 AIR SCW 690, State of M P vs Bani Singh AIR 1990 SC 1308, and State of A P vs N Radhakrishnan (1998) 4 SCC 154 and also the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Than Singh vs Union of India & Ors 2003 (3) ATJ 648.
3.3 The applicant's third objection is that the issuance of charge sheet dated 27.04.2023 is void ab initio in terms of rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969. It is contended that the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant is the State Government of Uttar Pradesh since the applicant is working in the State cadre of Uttar Pradesh; however, the Central Government has initiated the disciplinary proceedings on its own without taking the consent of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. 4.1 In regard to the 'no objection' furnished by the applicant on 01.09.2018 in the Special (CBI) Court on closure report filed by CBI, the respondents contend that the letter dated 20.08.2018 written by JS & CVO to Joint Director, CBI requested CBI to have a re-look at some of the issues of the case and a copy of this letter was provided to the applicant with the request to appear before the Special (CBI) Court and present the views of the Department, and the matter was also discussed by JS & CVO with the applicant on telephone on 23.08.2018, but the applicant, in contravention of the written directions, did not defend the Page 4 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors interest of Department of Heavy Industry. It is further contended that if the applicant was not aware of the intricacies of the case, he could have expressed his inability to take any stand on CBI's closure report instead of giving 'no objection'.
4.2 On the issue of delay in initiation of departmental proceedings, the respondent no. 1 states that it is incorrect that there was unduly long or unreasonable delay in issue of the charge sheet dated 27.04.2023; the alleged misconduct took place on 01.09.2018 when the case was last heard by the Special (CBI) Court and the Department sought explanation from the applicant vide letter dated 20.03.2019 and some time was taken in examination, process and approval of the competent authority which is not excessive or unreasonable. 4.3 On the issue of the competent authority to issue the charge sheet under rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1969, the respondents contend that the applicant was acting under specific instructions of the Central Government and his deposition in the Special (CBI) Court on 01.09.2018 was made in the capacity of representative of Central Government and not in discharge of State Government duties and, therefore, the alleged misconduct did not arise in connection with the affairs of the State Government. This being the position, it is contended that rule 7(1)(b)(i) is not attracted and that rule 7(1)(b)(vii) applies; further, in case of doubt, decision of Central Government is final in terms of rule 7(1)(B).
4.4 The respondent no. 2 states that as per provisions of rule 7(1)(b)(vii) of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, the Central Government is the competent authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in the case. Page 5 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors
5. We have heard both the parties and have been ably assisted by the senior counsel for the applicant as well as the counsels for the parties. In the following paragraphs, we examine various issues which have been raised in the controversy at hand.
6.0 'No Objection' furnished by the applicant 6.1 The entire case against the applicant in the charge sheet dated 27.04.2023 is that he furnished 'no objection' to CBI's closure report in the Special (CBI) Court on 01.09.2018 in the case registered by CBI under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 120-B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in contravention of the written directions received from Department of Heavy Industries (now Ministry of Heavy Industries), Government of India.
6.2 A perusal of the self-contained brief on the complaint against ex-CMD of M/s Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., which was the basis of registration of case by CBI, reveals that it related to alleged irregularities in disbursement of US $ 1.556 million as agency commission to one company which was a dummy organization allegedly created by the ex-CMD himself.
6.3 It is not under dispute that the applicant had referred the complaint to CBI when he was working as JS & CVO in the Department of Heavy Industry. It is also not in dispute that he was requested by the Department of Heavy Industry to appear before the Special (CBI) Court on 01.09.2018 and present the views of the Department as encapsulated in the D.O. letter to Joint Director, CBI, Kolkata. The relevant parts of the letter dated 20.08.2018 from Director in the Department of Heavy Industry addressed to CVO, B&R with copy to the Page 6 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors applicant requesting him to appear before the Special (CBI) Court are extracted below:
"3. In this case, Department is not satisfied with the investigation report of CBI and has accordingly taken up the matter with Joint Director, CBI, Kolkata (copy enclosed) to re-look into the matter and get examined the various irregularities broadly from the criminal point of view, especially in the background that no major RDA can be initiated against the two Board level officers of B&R involved in the case due to their retirement.
4. Department is also of the view that non-substitution of the complainant will certainly hamper the Department in representing the case properly. Therefore, complainant needs to be substituted with the present CVO of the Department to defend the case properly. In view of this, Department has decided to engage a Govt. Counsel/Advocate of B&R, for filing an appeal against the order dated 19.07.2018 passed by the Learned Judge Special (CBI) Court No. 2, Bichar Bhawan, Kolkata, rejecting the prayer of the Department for substitution of the complainant in this case.
...
Copy to:
Shri R. K. Singh, Principal Secretary Industries, Lucknow, Govt. of UP. Please find enclosed reference from CVO, B&R and DO letter written to Joint Director, CBI, Kolkata. As the CBI Court has so far not agreed to the request for substitution of the complainant by the present CVO, DHI, you are requested to appear before the CBI Special Court, Kolkata on 01.09.2018 and present the views of this Department as encapsulated in the DO letter to Joint Director, CBI, Kolkata."
(emphasis supplied) It is evident from the letter quoted above that the Department of Heavy Industry was not satisfied with CBI's investigation report and the matter was taken up with the Joint Director, CBI, Kolkata to re-look in the matter. It is also evident that the Special (CBI) Court had not agreed to the plea of the Department of Heavy Industry for substitution of the applicant with the serving JS & CVO of the Department as the complainant and, therefore, the applicant was requested to appear before the Special (CBI) Court on 01.09.2018 and present the views of the Department as encapsulated in the D.O. letter to Joint Director, CBI, Kolkata.
Page 7 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors 6.4 Coming to the letter dated 20.08.2018 of JS & CVO of Department of Heavy Industry addressed to Joint Director, CBI Kolkata, it would be appropriate to reproduce the letter below for it lies at the heart of the controversy:
"Please refer to CBI‟s letter No. 6583/RC0102016A0021/CBI/ ACB/Kol dated 16.07.2018 (copy enclosed), forwarding therewith Self Contained Note (SCN) in CBI, ACB, Kolkata Case No. RC0102016A0021 u/s 120B r/w 420 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 against Shri M K Singh, the then CMD of M/s Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Limited and others.
2. In the said case, CBI has filed a closure report with Special (CBI) Court, Kolkata (received in the Department from CBI Court, Kolkata) stating that their investigation did not substantiate the allegation of the FIR. However, in the said SCN, CBI has recommended RDA for Major Penalty against four officers of Bridge & Roof (B&R) and action, as deemed fit against another three officers of B&R for violation of instructions of Purchase Manual of B&R & CVC guidelines and other irregularities.
3. Preliminary scrutiny of SCN/closure report of CBI in the said case, reveals several discretionary/reckless decisions taken by the officers of B&R, raising doubt that most of the decisions were pre-meditated to favour particular persons/firm and put the officers involved under the category of doubtful integrity, therefore, appearing broadly covered under criminal misconduct. The main aspects, mentioned in the SCN/closure report of CBI, reflecting undue favour shown to particular persons/firm are annexed for your perusal.
4. In this case, two officers against whom RDA for Major Penalty has been recommended by CBI, have already retired/likely to retire this month and hence, recommendation of RDA would be infructuous. This is stated in view of the fact that since most CPSEs, including B&R do not have pensionary benefits etc. for their employees, there is virtually no action possible post retirement against the employees. Therefore, RDA remains merely on paper and does not serve the ends of justice. CBI may, therefore, like to have a re-look at the issues as indicated in the Annexure.
5. Department, vide letter of even no. dated 13.07.2018 had also requested CBI to provide their detailed investigation report in the matter so as to have a view by the Department for presenting before the Special CBI Court, Kolkata. However, the same has still not been provided.
6. In view of above, I request you to kindly re-look into the matter and get examined the various irregularities broadly from the criminal point of view, especially in the background that no major RDA can be initiated against the two Board level officers of B&R involved in the case due to their retirement. I also request you to arrange forwarding of the detailed investigation report of CBI in the case to the Department."
(emphasis supplied) Page 8 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors It is evident from the letter reproduced above that the Department of Heavy Industry requested CBI to have a re-look into various irregularities and also make available their detailed investigation report to the Department so as to have a view by the Department for presenting before the Special CBI Court.
Much has been made by learned senior counsel for the applicant that the Department of Heavy Industry did not have a view to be presented to the Special (CBI) Court as revealed in paragraph 5 of the letter quoted above. While agreeing with his assertion that the Department of Heavy Industry did not have a view to be presented to the Special (CBI) Court, it is evident to us from the perusal of the letter dated 20.08.2018 that the Department intended to formulate a view and had requested for CBI's detailed investigation report to be provided in order to do so. Nowhere in the letter dated 20.08.2018 we find any statement which can be reasonably construed as 'no objection' to CBI's closure report. This being the position, it cannot be said that there is no basis for framing the charge against the applicant in the charge sheet dated 27.04.2023.
6.5 The applicant's contention that he submitted 'no objection' to CBI's closure report in the Special (CBI) Court in his personal capacity is also not acceptable to us. It is not in dispute that the applicant was required to depose in the Special (CBI) Court as the complainant for the complaint he had made in his official capacity as JS & CVO of the Department of Heavy Industry during his posting in that Department. It is obvious that the applicant could not have been expected to have knowledge of the subsequent developments in the case once he demitted office and the only material available to him was the letter dated 20.08.2018. In the circumstances, there was no occasion for him Page 9 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors to take a view different from what had been conveyed to him vide the letter dated 20.08.2018.
6.6 Turning to the scope of judicial interference in the issuance of charge sheet in departmental proceedings, Hon'ble Supreme Court culled out the following principles in P C Mirdha (supra):
"13. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings..."
(emphasis supplied) It would also be apposite to refer to the following observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors vs Upendra Singh (1994) 3 SCC 357:
"6. In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the Tribunal or Court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The Tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into..."
(emphasis supplied) It is evident from the above, that the scope of judicial review of the charge sheet in a disciplinary inquiry is limited; while the Tribunal or Court can interfere if no misconduct or irregularity is made out, the judicial review does not encompass the correctness or truth of the charges. We have determined in paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 above that it cannot be said that no misconduct or irregularity is made out against the applicant; so the applicant's challenge to the charge sheet fails on this count.
7.0 Delay Page 10 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors 7.1 The next issue raised by the applicant is the delay of more than four years in the issue of the charge sheet. On the issue of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made observations in a catena of cases. In Bani Singh (supra), a charge sheet was issued in the year 1987 for certain incidents which had occurred more than a decade ago and Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry are said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal‟s orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal."
(emphasis supplied) 7.2 In Chaman Lal Goyal (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of delay in the following terms:
"10. Now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay warranted the quashing of charges in this case. It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, malafides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a process of balancing."
(emphasis supplied) Page 11 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors 7.3 It is noted that in P C Mirdha (supra) the issue of delay has been addressed in a similar vein as follows:
"13. ...Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."
(emphasis supplied) 7.4 In N. Radhakishan (supra), the charge sheet was issued in 1995 for incidents which happened 10 years or more prior to issuance of charge sheet. While upholding the Tribunal's order quashing the charge sheet, Hon'ble Supreme Court elucidated the following principles in regard to delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings:
"19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations."
(emphasis supplied) Page 12 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors From the above, it follows that when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for it, it may vitiate the disciplinary proceedings, but the Court has to consider the nature and complexity of charge also to arrive at such determination.
7.5 In P V Mahadevan (supra) the charge sheet was issued in the year 2000 for alleged irregularities in issuing a sale deed in 1990. Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"10. Section 118 specifically provides for the submission of the extracts of accounts at the end of every year and Section 119 relates to annual audit of accounts. These two statutory provisions have not been complied with at all. In the instant case the transaction took place in the year 1990. The expenditure ought to have been considered in the accounts of the succeeding year. In the instant case the audit report was ultimately released in 1994-95. The explanation offered for the delay in finalizing the audit account cannot stand scrutiny in view of the above two provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1961. It is now stated that the appellant has retired from service. There is also no acceptable explanation on the side of the respondent explaining the inordinate delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. Mr R Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel is appearing for the respondent. His submission that the period from the date of commission of the irregularities by the appellant to the date on which it came to the knowledge of the Housing Board cannot be reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any delay on part of the Board in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant has no merit and force. The stand now taken by the respondent in this Court in the counter affidavit is not convincing and is only an afterthought to give some explanation for the delay.
11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interest of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interest of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer."
(emphasis supplied) Page 13 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors 7.6 In addition to the above, in a recent judgment dated 01.04.2025 in Amresh Shrivastava vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 10590 of 2024) involving belated issue of charge sheet to a Tehsildar for granting land settlement in favour of ineligible persons, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"17. As to the second question, regarding whether delay is a ground for stopping the departmental proceedings at the stage of the chargesheet itself, suffice it to say that this varies from case to case. However, in the instant case where there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite the alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the department, but still no departmental proceedings are initiated, the answer must go in favour of the employee. However, there may be cases where the department was not even aware of such irregularities or the misconduct, which is of such a nature that it is indicative, based on material considerations of factors other than merit, such as extraneous influences and gratifications. In such cases, such a delay, by itself would not be a valid ground to scuttle the initiation of the process of departmental proceedings."
(emphasis supplied) It follows from the above that unexplained inordinate delay can be fatal to initiation of the disciplinary proceedings if the nature of charges does not involve misconduct relating to extraneous influences and gratifications.
7.7 Coming to the facts of the case, it is observed that the applicant deposed on 01.09.2018 before the Special (CBI) Court in a case involving alleged offence inter alia under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1987 and his deposition became the cause of charge sheet dated 27.04.2023. Admittedly, the respondents sought applicant's explanation on 20.03.2019 and issued the charge sheet after examining his reply. We do not think that the delay of about four and half year can be said to be abnormal or unreasonable. Moreover, no case has been made out as to the prejudice caused to the applicant on account of such delay. In view of this position, we are not inclined to interfere with the charge sheet on account of delay.
Page 14 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors 8.0 Competent authority 8.1 Coming to rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 cited by the applicant, it is noted that rule 7 contains following provisions relevant to the present case:
"7. Authority to institute proceedings and to impose penalty.-
7(1) Where a member of the Service has committed any act or omission which renders him liable to any penalty specified in rule 6- 7(1)(a) if such act or omission was committed before his appointment to the Service -
.....
7(1)(b) If such act or omission was committed after his appointment to the Service-
(i) while he was serving in connection with the affairs of a State, or is deputed for service under any company, association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government of a State, or in a local authority set up by an Act of the Legislature of that State, the Government of that State; or .....
(vii) the Central Government, in any other case, shall alone be competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against him and, subject to provisions of sub-rule (2), to impose on him such penalty specified in rule 6 as it thinks fit, and the Government, company associations, body of individuals or local authority, as the case may be under whom he is serving at the time of institution of such proceedings shall be bound to render all reasonable facilities to the Government instituting and conducting such proceedings.
Explanation.- ....
7(1B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), if, in any case, a question arises as to the Government competent to institute disciplinary proceedings, it shall be decided by the Central Government and the Government so decided by the Central Government, as being competent to institute disciplinary proceedings (which may include the Central Government also), shall alone be competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against him and, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), to impose on him such penalty specified in rule 6 as it thinks fit, and Government, company association, body of individuals, or the local authority, as the case may be, under whom he is serving at the time of the institution of such proceedings shall be bound to render all reasonable facilities to the Government instituting and conducting such proceedings."
(emphasis supplied) 8.2 The applicant's contention is that as the charge sheet has been issued based on his deposition on 01.09.2018 made before the Special Page 15 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors (CBI) Court when he was posted under the State Government, the competent authority to issue the charge sheet is the State Government under rule 7(1)(b)(i). At the first glance, it may appear that such should be the case. However, the matter requires delving into. For the sake of discussion, the acts of commission or omission warranting institution of departmental proceedings against an All India Service officer while he is serving in connection with the affairs of a State can be divided into three categories in our understanding: (i) acts connected with affairs of the State Government; (ii) acts connected with personal misdemeanor amounting to misconduct (for example, participation in political activity, giving or taking dowry etc.); and (iii) acts connected with the affairs of the Central Government. Now for the first two categories, there is no doubt in our minds that the State Government would be the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings. It is the third category, i.e., act which is connected with the affairs of Central Government while serving under the State Government which requires further deliberation for it is a rare category with its peculiar characteristics, exemplified by the case at hand. 8.3 In the normal course, an occasion should not arise of an All India Service officer acting in connection with the affairs of the Central Government while serving in connection with the affairs of the State Government; this is for the simple reason that the officer would normally act related to the affairs of the Central Government while he is discharging his duties under the Central Government. However, the present case makes us confront the situation where the applicant's act of deposition in the Special (CBI) Court was in connection with a case being prosecuted by the Central Government even as the applicant was serving under the State Government. If we go by the applicant's interpretation of rule 7(1)(b)(i), the State Government should be the Page 16 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors competent authority to initiate the departmental proceedings; but this immediately brings up the problem that the State Government has no knowledge of the case and it cannot prosecute it unless it is advised by the Central Government at every step. Such a scenario would not be legally tenable as in departmental proceedings, the competent authority (say, State Government) in charge of the proceedings cannot act as per the advice or diktat of another authority (say, Central Government); it is required to apply its mind independently in conducting the departmental proceedings. In our view, the problem is amenable to resolution if rule 7(1)(b)(i) is interpreted in the literal sense of „while serving in connection with the affairs of a State‟ ; in this scenario, when the All India Service officer acts in connection with affairs of Central Government while he is posted under the State Government, he cannot be deemed to be serving in connection with the affairs of a State for that particular act connected with the affairs of the Central Government. It is noteworthy that the wording in rule 7(1)(b)(i) is „while serving in connection with the affairs of a State‟ and not „while serving under (or in control of) a State Government‟. The reasonable interpretation, according to us, would be that such a case would fall within the purview of rule 7(1)(b)(vii), i.e., the Central Government would be the competent authority to institute disciplinary proceedings in such a case. In this view of the matter, the Central Government has rightly instituted the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, in our opinion.
9. Before parting, we hasten to add that we have adjudicated the sustainability in law of the impugned charge sheet dated 27.04.2023 which was challenged in this OA. Our observations in this judgment and order have no relevance for the veracity, or otherwise, of the charge of misconduct against the applicant which must be established, or dropped, on the basis of the findings of the enquiry in the disciplinary Page 17 of 18 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No.332/00385/2025 Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. U.O.I. & Ors proceedings and the view taken by the disciplinary authority on such findings. In other words, our observations herein shall not be taken into consideration by the respondents/competent authority in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. 10.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed. 10.2 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
10.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2025.12.19
14:39:06 +05'30'
Page 18 of 18