Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Swamy Chandrahas vs Council Of Scientific & Industrial ... on 27 November, 2025
1 OA.684/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.684/2024
Dated this Thursday the 27th day of November, 2025.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (Judicial).
Swamy Chandrahas,
Sr. Deputy Financial Adviser (Retd.),
CSIR-URDIP-Pune,
Having address at:
A-301, Krishna Residency, Sai Chowk,
Pashan Sus Road, Pune - 411 021. .. Applicant.
( By Advocate Shri Amit Saple )
Versus
1. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research,
Through its Director General,
Anusandhan Bhavan, 2 Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
Milan Jackson
Alphanso
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson
Alphanso
Location:
Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1
2. Vice President, CSIR,
Anusandhan Bhavan, 2 Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. Chief Vigilance Officer,
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research,
Anusandhan Bhavan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
4. Head, URDIP,
NCL Campus, Dr. H. Bhabha Road,
Pune - 411 008. .. Respondents.
(By Advocate Shri K.P. Anilkumar a/w Ms. Priyanka Kumar).
2 OA.684/2024
Order reserved on : 10.09.2025
Order pronounced on : 27.11.2025
ORDER
Per : Shri Krishna, Member (A).
By this O.A., the applicant is seeking to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 (Annex-A-1) for withholding 10% of monthly pension for the period of one year on the ground that the same has been issued in violation of provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and to refund the withhold amount of gratuity, commutation and leave encashment along with interest at 18% p.a. on the withhold amount for the delayed period.
2. Facts in brief are that the applicant was working as Sr. Deputy Financial Adviser with the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (for short CSIR), under the Ministry of Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Science and Technology (for short MoS&T) at the time of his Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 retirement on superannuation on 30.04.2018. 2.1. The CSIR introduced a Scheme called "Quick Recruitment of Scientist" in the year 1986. However, the Scheme did not indicate any 'Budget Head' to book the expenditure related to emoluments paid to 'Quick Hire Fellows' (in short QHF). In the absence of a duly identified and notified 3 OA.684/2024 Budget Head, different CSIR labs were booking the expenditure on emoluments paid to QHF under different Budget Heads. The booking of this expenditure was left to the best judgment of the concerned FAO/COFA of the Laboratory/Institute. 2.2. The CSIR issued Circular dated 20.08.2009 directing all Laboratories under CSIR to link the number of QHF with the number of vacant positions of Group-IV Scientists and directed that the hiring of the QHF should not exceed the vacant position at any given point of time. Pursuant to the above letter, National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS), New Delhi, which is one of the Laboratory under the CSIR vide their letter dated 01.12.2009 addressed to Financial Adviser, CSIR requested to specify the budget head for booking the expenditure for engaging Scientists under "Quick Hire Scheme(QHS)". Based on this letter, the F&AO, Budget Section Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: had initiated a file and proposed to book the expenditure of Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 QHFs under "Quick Hire Scheme" with the classification code 'P01001' which was approved by the F&AO (Accounts). Thereafter, the file came before the applicant who was working as Dy. Financial Adviser. He consented and sent back the file to Sr. Dy. Financial Adviser. It is the case of the applicant that his 4 OA.684/2024 action was keeping in view of recommendations of senior-most officers in hierarchy and on keeping in view all relevant provision / circular.
2.3. The issue was thereafter examined by the Budget Section, consented by Accounts Section of CSIR Headquarters and file was sent for the approval of the Competent Authority and it was approved by the Competent Authority. The above arrangement was conveyed in the year 2015 and approved by the new Financial Adviser, CSIR. However, the applicant was issued show cause notice dated 20.10.2015(Annex-A-2) by the Chief Vigilance Officer, CSIR, alleging irregular and violative proposal for making payments to QHF.
2.4 The applicant replied to the above show cause notice vide his letter dated 27.10.2015 stating that fixing of the budget head P-01001 was an unanimous decision and was approved by Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 the Competent Authority in Finance i.e. Financial Adviser as per the practice in existence in CSIR (Annex-A-3). However, despite his detailed reply he was served with Charge-Memorandum dated 28.02.2018 at the verge of his retirement for concurring the proposal (Annex-A-4). Subsequently, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed vide order dated 03.07.2018. 5 OA.684/2024 The applicant superannuated on 30.04.2018. However, the inquiry was initiated on 19.11.2018 i.e. after a delay of approximately 5 months. In the inquiry, the documentary evidence was led by the parties and the witnesses were examined.
2.5. The Inquiry Officer's report dated 26.03.2021 was received by the applicant along with letter of vigilance dated 18.08.2022 and CVC letter dated 28.04.2022 (Annex-A-5) initiating 2nd stage advice of major penalty proceedings. 2.6 It is the case of the applicant that as per the Inquiry Officer's report, no charges were proved against the applicant. However, despite the fact that no charge was proved against the applicant by the IO, the CVC after disagreement with the Disciplinary Authority's decision has decided to initiate major penalty proceedings at the 2nd stage advice. By the said letter, Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 the applicant was further called upon to present his representation, if any, within 15 days. The applicant filed his representation on 01.09.2022 (Annex-A-6). 2.7. The applicant received an order dated 17.05.2023, issued in the name of the Vice President, CSIR by the CVO by which it has been ordered for withholding 10% of the monthly 6 OA.684/2024 pension for a period of one year. It has been submitted that the impugned order for withholding 10% of the monthly pension for a period of one year is illegal and void-ab-initio as the said order was passed without giving an opportunity to defend against the disagreement on the inquiry report, therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the inquiry report and based merely on surmises and conjectures brushing aside the irrefutable evidences and materials on record.
2.8. Thereafter, the applicant approached the President with the representation / appeal dated 03.07.2023 (Annex-A-7) against the impugned order. The same was disposed of on 04.06.2024 stating that the said appeal is not maintainable (Annex-A-8) as the impugned order was passed in the name of the President and, therefore, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.
Digitally signed by Milan JacksonMilan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 2.9. It has been submitted that the impugned charge- sheet dated 28.02.2018 pertains to the year 2010, shows gross delay which makes it void ab-initio. The Respondent-CSIR has failed to give any valid reasons for the said delay. Due to the said inordinate and unexplained delay, the applicant's rights are prejudiced adversely.
7 OA.684/20242.10. It has been further submitted that the impugned charge-memo issued just before the applicant's retirement was only to harass him at the fag end of his service and also intended to tarnish his unblemished service record. It has been submitted that the specifying a budget head for QHF was an unanimous decision and the same was approved by the Competent Authority on recommendations of senior-most officers. Further, the proposal approved was mere reiteration of decisions taken on earlier two occasions i.e. in 1987 and 2008 in the CSIR Hqrs. The applicant being the junior in the hierarchy was only charge-sheeted and punished which shows that the applicant is discriminated.
2.11. It has been further submitted that the proposal for meeting the expenditure of QHFs was neither irregular nor violative of Rules or procedures. The applicant has not caused Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: incurrence of wrongful expenditure over Rs.1.50 crore as Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 alleged. More particularly when no such power was delegated to applicant under the existing rules. Admittedly, the power of approval for such payments was vested with the Financial Adviser.
8 OA.684/20242.12. It has been submitted that as per Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules, where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the President or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding. The Competent Authority has unjustly violated this provision and initiated action separately on the individuals with malafide intention.
2.13. It has been submitted that withholding of applicant's gratuity, commutation and leave encashment and other retirement benefits till the completion of the departmental inquiry is illegal and is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been further submitted that the Competent Authority while passing the order completely ignored Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and passed illogical Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 order, more particularly when the charge against the applicant was not proved. The Disciplinary Authority is legally bound to give their reasoning for disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. By not submitting the same to the charged officer along with the Inquiry Report and CVC advice, the respondents 9 OA.684/2024 deprived the applicant from a fair opportunity to defend himself and acted in violation of the CCS Rules.
2.14. It has been further submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Vice President, CSIR against whose order no appeal is available. Hence the applicant lost his substantial right of appeal. On this ground also, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. It has been submitted that the impugned order has caused colossal, mental and monetary injustice to the applicant, the impugned order being erroneous, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unconstitutional deserves to be quashed and set aside as the same is against the rights of the applicant under Articles 14, 16, 21 and Articles 309, 310, 311 of the Constitution of India.
3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the O.A. It has been submitted that the impugned order was passed after following process of law. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 3.1. It has been submitted that as per CSIR Bye-Laws Rule 12, CCS (CCA) Rule is applicable to CSIR employees and any reference to President of India in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 shall be construed as reference to President of the Society i.e. President, CSIR. Also as per the order by President, CSIR vide order dated 22.03.1958, VP, CSIR, is authorised to exercise all 10 OA.684/2024 or any of the powers as the President, CSIR thereof. Further, as per the delegation of power by President, CSIR vide CSIR Circular No.15-1(19)/67-Vig. Dated 19.09.2006, Vice President of CSIR is authorised to exercise powers of President, CSIR under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Thus, in CSIR, after superannuation of the official, against whom Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated when he was in service, it becomes deemed proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and vide CSIR Circular No.15-1(19)/67-Vig. dated 19.09.2006, VP CSIR is authorised (Ref. Note -2) to act as Competent Authority on behalf of President, CSIR for the cases of retired Council Servants.
3.2. It has been further submitted that charge-sheet was issued on 28.02.2018 i.e. before the retirement of the applicant, who retired on superannuation on 30.04.2018 and the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Disciplinary proceedings against him continued after his Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 retirement under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The penalty was imposed by the Hon'ble Vice President, CSIR on behalf of the Hon'ble President, CSIR, therefore, as per Rule 22(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, wherein it is mentioned that no appeal shall lie against any order made by the President, the 11 OA.684/2024 appeal of the applicant was disposed of and the same was communicated to him vide letter dated 04.06.2024. 3.3. It has been submitted that further in the case there is any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order it is mentioned that as per Rule 29-A (Review) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 "The President may, at any time, either on his own motion or otherwise review any order passed under these rules, when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come or has been brought to his notice".
3.4. It has been submitted that the departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, were initiated against the applicant vide memorandum dated Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 28.02.2018 while he was in service. Charges against him was that while he was functioning as the then Deputy Financial Adviser, CSIR Headquarters, in the year 2010, after receipt of letter dated 01.12.2009 from NISTADS to FA, CSIR, for specifying the budget head for the booking of expenditure for engaging Scientist QHFs under Quick Hire Scheme for major 12 OA.684/2024 projects and thereupon the proposal dated 01/10.09.2009 initiated by then F&AO proposing to book the expenditure of Scientist QHFs recruited under Quick Hire Scheme, in the Budget Head - pay of Officers (Scientific) with classification code - P01000 (by deliberately and wrongly referring to CSIR Circular No.483 dated 20.08.2009 which mentioned only on linking the number of QHFs to be filled in by the labs and had no relevance and connectivity on deciding the budget head for the major projects.
3.5. It has been submitted that the then Sr. Dy. FA had twice sought clarification on the issue. Once when he wrote on 11.12.2009 to have view of Accounts on Shri Goyal's proposal and second time when he advised on 21.12.2009 to obtain before-hand approval of competent authority on filling-up of short term positions. But the applicant did not seek Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: information/clarification from the concerned quarters both at Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 CSIR Hqrs and from Finance, NISTADS. Rather he furthered the process by reiterating in his note dated 12.01.2010 the position which was initially submitted by Shri Goyal in his proposal dated 09/10.12.2009.
13 OA.684/20243.6. It has been further submitted that the applicant deliberately did not interpret the circular No.483 dated 20.08.2009 in correct manner and also did not check the records of Budget Section as well as did not consult the then Research and Development Planning Division (RDPD) of CSIR Hqrs which monitored the financial proposals of major projects but reiterated in his note dated 12.01.2010 the aforesaid proposal of Shri Goyal to book the expenditure under Pay of Officers (Scientific) with classification code P01001 and thereby connived with the Finance CSIR Hqrs. in not obtaining the requisite information/clarification from NISTADS, Budget Section and RDPD, which would have revealed the irregularity and violation of booking the expenditure on salary of Scientist QHFs under the Budget Head "Pay of Officers (Scientific) with Classification Code - P01001".
Digitally signed by Milan JacksonMilan Jackson Alphanso Location: 3.7. It has been submitted that the applicant did not Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 exercise due diligence by (i) ascertaining from NISTADS under which major project the Scientist Fellows had been recruited by it, (ii) by deliberately not interpreting the circular no.483 dated 20.08.2009 in correct manner, (iii) his failure to check the provisions of Major Project, (iv) his failure to check the 14 OA.684/2024 sanctioned budget/allocation of the project, (v) his failure to check that there was no provision to allow or re-appropriate the payments from salary heads, as per guidelines of 11th FYP wherein there was no provision to either to re-appropriate funds from salary of Regular staff, nor this project of NISTADS has provision for recruiting Scientist 'Fellows' and (vi) violation of the provisions of rule 73 of the General Financial Rules, 2005 read in conjunction with Rule 8 and Rule 10 of Delegation of Financial Power Rules. This led to an irregular and violative approval for booking the expenditure on salary of irregularly recruited Scientist 'fellows' in SUPRA project, under the "Pay of Officers (Scientific) with Classification Code - P01001" causing incurrence of wrongful expenditure of over Rs.1.50 crore. 3.8. It has been submitted that the charge-sheet was issued to the applicant on 28.02.2018 and his statement of Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: defence (SoD) dated 26.03.2018 was received in Vigilance Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 Division on 02.04.2018. After examination of his SOD by Vigilance Division, the same was submitted before the Competent Authority vide note dated 28.05.2018 for appointment of IO/PO, which was approved by the Competent Authority on 25.06.2018. After appointment of IO/PO vide Order dated 15 OA.684/2024 03.07.2018, copy of charge memorandum dated 28.02.2018 with listed documents and copy of statement of defence dated 26.03.2018 were forwarded to IO/PO vide letter dated 13.08.2018. Thereafter, first preliminary hearing was held on 19.11.2018. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that there was a deliberate delay of approximately 5 months is not true. 3.9. It has been submitted that as per Para 7.28.4 of CVC Manual 2021 following documents were forwarded to CVC for Second Stage Advice -
(i) A copy of charge sheet issued to the public servant;
(ii) A copy of Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiring Authority (along with a spare copy for the Commission's records);
(iii) The entire case records of the inquiry, viz. copies of the depositions, daily order sheets, exhibits, written briefs of the Presenting Officer and the Charged Officer;
(iv) Comments of the CVO and the Disciplinary Authority on the assessment of evidence done by the Inquiring Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Authority and also on further course to be taken on the Inquiry Report.
Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 CVC after consideration of the above documents tendered its Second Stage Advice in the matter. Thereafter, a copy of Inquiry Report and Second Stage Advice of CVC, wherein CVC in disagreement with the Competent Authority reiterated its earlier advice of Major Penalty Proceedings, was provided to 16 OA.684/2024 Shri S. Chandrahas vide letter No. 15-43(27)/2013-Vig dated 18.08.2022 as per CCS (CCA) Rule for his representation within 15 days of receipt of the letter.However, it could be observed that the applicant in above para transcends his authority to decide that "the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was wrong in its decision".
3.10. It has been further submitted that in response to Vigilance Division letter dated 18.08.2022 whereby Inquiry Report and 2nd Stage Advice of CVC, wherein CVC in disagreement with the Competent Authority reiterated its earlier advice of Major Penalty Proceedings, was forwarded to Shri S. Chandrahas. He submitted his representation dated 01.09.2022 which was submitted before the Hon'ble VP CSIR, the Competent Authority, for consideration. After considering the representation of Shri S. Chandrahas, Inquiry Report, Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: depositions on record, 2nd Stage Advice of CVC, extant rule Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 position etc., Hon'ble VP CSIR ordered to impose penalty of withholding 10% of monthly pension admissible to Shri S. Chandrahas for a period of one year, which was communicated to Shri S. Chandrahas vide Order dated 17.05.2023. 17 OA.684/2024 3.11. It has been submitted that as per Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965-
"Sub-Rule (2) "The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant".
Sub-Rule (3) (a) "In every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded to the Commission for its advice:
Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Location:
(i) a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiring Authority on any article of charge; and
(ii) comments of Disciplinary Authority on the representation of the Government servant on the Inquiry report and disagreement note, if any and all the case records of the inquiry proceedings.18 OA.684/2024
(b) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission received under clause (a) to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, on the advice of the Commission".
Sub-Rule (4) "The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation under sub-rule (2) and/or clause (b) of sub- rule (3), if any, submitted by the Government servant and record its findings before proceedings further in the matter as specified in sub-rules (5) and (6)".
Sub-Rule (5) "If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to
(iv) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty".
Sub-Rule (6) "If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to
(ix) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed".
19 OA.684/2024Further, as per CVC Manual 2021 Para 7.27 MAKING AVAILABLE A COPY OF CVC ADVICE TO THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEE it is stated that "When the CVC's second stage advice is obtained, a copy thereof may be made available to the concerned employee, along with the IO's report, to give him an opportunity to make representation against IO's findings and the CVC's advice, if he desires to do so".
3.12. It has been further submitted that in this instant case, no specific comments of the Disciplinary Authority was there regarding his disagreement on the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge. Therefore, as approved by the Disciplinary Authority as per the provision of para 7.27 of Vigilance Manual 2021, a copy of CVC second stage advice wherein CVC in disagreement with the Competent Authority reiterated its earlier advice of Major Penalty Proceedings, and Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: the report of the Inquiring Authority was forwarded vide letter Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 dated 18.08.2022 to give Shri S Chandrahas an opportunity to make a representation in this regard, if he desires to do so. After receiving the representation dated 01.09.2022 from Shri S. Chandrahas, the matter was submitted before the Disciplinary 20 OA.684/2024 Authority for consideration and final order. Hence, the applicant was given fair opportunity before issue of final order. 3.13. It has been further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority keeps the statutory power to impose any penalty. However, while imposing the penalty, self-contained speaking order is to be issued giving all the reason for imposing such penalty. While issuing the order dated 17.05.2023, which is a self-contained speaking order, Disciplinary Authority has clearly mentioned the reason for imposing the penalty to the applicant. 3.14. It has been submitted that in view of the same, as the Hon'ble VP, CSIR on behalf of Hon'ble President, CSIR has passed order for penalty of withholding 10% of monthly pension admissible to Shri S. Chandrahas for a period of one year. As per Rule 22(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 wherein it is mentioned that no appeal shall lie against any order made by the President, Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 therefore, the appeal of Shri S. Chandrahas was disposed of and the same was communicated to him vide letter dated 04.06.2024.
3.15. It has been submitted that there is no merit in the contention of Shri S. Chandrahas that the decision is illegal as he was given fair opportunity at different stages of the 21 OA.684/2024 Disciplinary Proceedings as per rule and penalty was imposed by issuing him self-contained speaking order. 3.16. It has been submitted that the matter started with the receipt of PIDPI complaint vide CVCOM dated 03.09.2012 and OM dated 25.02.2013. After, investigation of the matter, irregularities observed and on identifying the role and responsibility of the officers involved, the matter was submitted before the Hon'ble VP CSIR. On 28.08.2015 Hon'ble VP, CSIR directed to initiate Major Penalty Proceedings against all those responsible at NISTADS and at CSIR, Head Quarters. 3.17. It has been submitted that CVC tendered First Stage Advice on 12.04.2016. However, due to many administrative reasons like review and re-examination of the matter by DG, CSIR, relieving of the CVO on 25.04.2016, transfer of dealing SO on 26.07.2016 to other Lab./Division who was well versed Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 with the matter, instruction of CVO in additional charge to put long pending cases to the regular CVO, later, considering the gravity of the case the matter was re-examined and submitted to DG, CSIR and after few necessary corrections, the draft charge sheet was approved in Jan. 2018.Therefore, the contention of Shri S. Chandrahas is not true that the issuance of Charge 22 OA.684/2024 Sheet just before the Applicant's retirement was only to harass the Applicant at the fag-end of his service and intended to tarnish his unblemished service record.
3.18. It has been further submitted that it is not correct that he being a junior officer in the hierarchy was only charge sheeted. Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, the then SO (F&A), who sought clarification regarding Budget Head vide NISTADS letter dated 01.12.2009 and Shri MP Goyal, the then F&AO, who initiated the proposal at CSIR HO were also charge sheeted in the same matter where the Inquiry Officer found the charges are proved and the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty against the officers.
In view of the above submissions, it has been submitted that the impugned order was rightly issued. Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Location:
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply submitted by Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 the respondents reiterating his submissions in the O.A. and it has been submitted that as per provisions of 7.25.3 of the Vigilance Manual, 2021 provides that -
"7.25.3. If the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, it will, while recording its own findings, also record reasons 23 OA.684/2024 for its disagreement, which will be provided to the Government servant concerned."
It is admitted by the respondents in their reply that no specific comments of the Disciplinary Authority were there regarding his disagreement of the finding of inquiry authority on any article of charge. Therefore, the respondents' actions demonstrate a complete lack of application of mind, resulting in a gross violation of the Central Civil Services (CCS) Rules and the Vigilance Manual, 2021.
4.1. It has been submitted that there has been blatant disregard for established procedures and guidelines has deprived the applicant of a fair opportunity to defend himself, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
5. No sur-rejoinder has been filed by the respondents.
6. During arguments both the sides have argued their Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 case on the basis of pleadings.
6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that show cause notice was issued in 2015 and impugned order has been passed after a period of 8 years in 2023 i.e. 5 years of the retirement of the applicant. Thus, the impugned order is liable to 24 OA.684/2024 be quashed on the ground of delay as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Another, (2015) 16 SCC 415. 6.2. It has been submitted that in the inquiry none of the charges against the applicant were proved and the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the applicant from all the charges. However, the 2nd inquiry was initiated against the applicant without giving him any opportunity of being heard. It has been submitted that the Disciplinary Authority without issuing any disagreement note directed to impose the penalty ignoring the report of the Inquiry Officer.
6.3. It has been submitted that the 2nd stage advice of the CVC was not provided to the applicant and thus violated the principles of natural justice. The applicant has placed reliance Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Malhotra vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2013) 7 SCC 251 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that not furnishing the copy of the recorded reasons for disagreement from the enquiry report itself causes prejudice to the applicant 25 OA.684/2024 and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the reply submitted by the respondents.
8. We have heard both the counsels and given our thoughtful consideration.
9. The facts in brief are that the applicant was working as Senior Deputy Financial Adviser with the respondents. The respondents have introduced a Quick Recruitment of Scientist in the year 1986. However, the scheme did not indicate any 'Budget Head' to book the expenditure related to emoluments paid to 'Quick Hire Fellows'. In the absence of specified Budget Head, different CSIR labs were booking the expenditure on emoluments paid to QHF under different Budget Heads. In the Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: year 2009, CSIR issued circular dated 20.08.2009 directing all Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 Laboratories under CSIR to link the number of QHF with the number of vacant positions of Group-IV Scientists. Shri M.P. Goyal, the then Finance and Accounts Officer, Budget Section has sent a proposal to the applicant on 09.12.2009 proposing the expenditure of QHFs with the clarification code 'P01001'. The applicant consented to the proposal and file was sent for 26 OA.684/2024 examination to the Budget Section. The Budget Section also consented to the proposal and file was sent for the approval of the competent authority and it was approved by the competent authority. The above arrangement continued till the year 2015 and was duly approved by the New Financial Adviser of CSIR. 9.1 It has been alleged by the respondents that the applicant did not seek information/clarification from the concerned headquarters both at CSIR and from NISTADS to Finance in the matter involving the interpretation of circular No.483 dated 20.08.2009. It is alleged that the applicant did not interpret the above circular in the correct manner and did not check the record of Budget Section, which according to the respondents, has resulted in the booking of expenditure of 1.5 crore under wrong head and thus the applicant violated the various conduct rules.
Digitally signed by Milan JacksonMilan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 9.2 The applicant was given a show cause notice on 20.10.2015. The applicant replied to the show cause notice on 27.10.2015. The CVC gave its 1st stage advice on 12.04.2016. However, the charge memorandum was issued to the applicant on 28.02.2018 i.e. almost 3 years and ½ months after show cause notice was replied by the applicant and after 2 years of 27 OA.684/2024 advice of the CVC. The Inquiry Officer in his 71 page report dated 26.03.2021 has exonerated the applicant from all the charges. It will be helpful to extract herein his conclusion (page 111 of OA) herein as under:
"Therefore, the charge against the CO, Sh. S. Chandrahas can not be sustained. None of the evidences suggested acts of omission and commission that led to an irregular and violative approval for booking the expenditure on salary of irregularly recruited Scientist 'Fellows' in SUPRA project, under the "Pay and Officers (Scientific) with Classification Code - P01001" causing incurrence of wrongful expenditure of over Rs.1.50 crore. Also, the violation of GFR 73, Rule 8 and 10 is not proved. There was no evidence to show that Sh. S. Chandrahas failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Council Servant contravening the Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), (iii),
(vi), (ix) , (xvi) and (xviii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, as made applicable to the CSIR employees."
The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report and forwarded the Inquiry Officer's report to the CVC for the 2nd stage advice. The Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: CVC tendered 2nd stage advice on 28.04.2022 advising for major Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 penalty proceedings. It will be helpful to extract the advice of CVC herein as under:-
"Office Memorandum Sub: 2nd Stage Advice in respect of Sh. M.P. Goyal, CoFA(Retd.) CSIR and others.
**** 28 OA.684/2024 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research may refer to their letter No.15-43(27)/2013-Vig. Dated 28/01/2022, 21/02/2022 and 21.03.2022 on the subject cited above.
2. The Commission has perused the inquiry report along with relevant records of the case and comments of administrative authorities thereon. Considering the facts of the case, the Commission in disagreement with the Competent Disciplinary Authority has decided to reiterate its earlier advice of Major Penalty proceedings against the following officers:
(i) Shri M.P. Goyal, the then F&AO (now Retired)
(ii) Shri S. Chandrahas, the then Dy. FA(now Retired)
(iii) ShriAnil Kumar Sharma, the then Section Officer (F&A), NISTADS.
3. Action taken may be informed to the Commission." It can be seen from the above Office Memorandum of the CVC that they have disagreed with the competent disciplinary authority which shows that the competent disciplinary authority has agreed with the inquiry report and not proposed any issue of Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: disagreement note. The same was done at the advised of CVC. Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 9.3 Pursuant to the second stage advice of the CVC, the applicant was served the copy of inquiry report alongwith disagreement note and which resulted in the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 withholding of 10% monthly pension for the period of one year. The applicant made representation dated 03.07.2023 against the impugned order which was disposed of 29 OA.684/2024 on 04.06.2024 on the ground that no appeal lies against the Disciplinary Authority's order as the same was passed in the name of president.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the incident pertains to booking of expenditure for the Quick Hire Fellows as per the scheme of 1986 which was done in 2009 based on the circular and extant practice. He submitted that the applicant neither initiated the proposal nor approved it. He submitted that the proposal was initiated by Mr. M.P. Goyal, Finance and Accounts Officer on the basis of clarification sought by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, the then Section Officer, Finance and Accounts regarding the Budget Head. The applicant only consented with the proposal and sent the file to the competent authority i.e. Financial Adviser. Thus, the applicant was neither initiating authority nor the accepting authority. He was only a Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: intermediate officer in the chain of the hierarchy and competent Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 authority to approve the proposal was Financial Adviser. However, no action has been taken against the Financial Adviser, who approved the proposal.
10.1 The applicant submitted that there has been inordinate delay in passing the impugned order as the show 30 OA.684/2024 cause notice was issued to the applicant on 20.10.2015 and the impugned order has been passed after the delay of 8 years. He further submitted that the first stage CVC advice was given on 12.04.2016. Thus, there is delay of more than 7 years even after advice of the CVC and, therefore, the same is hit by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali (supra).
11. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the respondents have admitted that the Disciplinary Authority has not disagreed with the Inquiry Officer's report while sending the proposal to the CVC. He has issued disagreement note only as per the 2nd stage advice of the CVC. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority has not applied his own mind and he acted on the dictate of the CVC and, therefore, it was a post decisional hearing. It was submitted that it is the contention of the applicant Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: that second stage advice of the CVC was not submitted to the Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 applicant and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents tried to explain the delay on the ground of administrative work. However, no reasons have been given why there has been delay of 8 years 31 OA.684/2024 after the issuance of the show cause notice and even when CVC advised the disciplinary proceedings on 12.04.2016 why it took them more than 7 years in completing the inquiry proceedings. There has not been any averment by the respondents whether the applicant was in any way responsible for this delay. Therefore, inordinate delay in the present case caused prejudice to the applicant.
13. Regarding non providing the copy of the 2nd stage advice to the applicant, the respondents have submitted that the copy of the 2nd stage advice was provided to the applicant on 18.08.2022 to make representation and he did make representation on 01.09.2022. Therefore, the contention that he was not provided the 2nd stage advice of the CVC is not correct.
14. The respondents have produced Rule 15 of the CCS(CCA) 1965 in their reply. It will be helpful to extract herein Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 the above rule :
"Sub-Rule (2) "The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for 32 OA.684/2024 disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant".
Sub-Rule (3) (a) "In every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded to the Commission for its advice:
(i) a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiring Authority on any article of charge; and
(ii) comments of Disciplinary Authority on the representation of the Government servant on the Inquiry report and disagreement note, if any and all the case records of the inquiry proceedings. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location:
(b) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 be forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission received under clause (a) to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, on the advice of the Commission".
33 OA.684/2024
Sub-Rule (4) "The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation under sub-rule (2) and/or clause (b) of sub-rule (3), if any, submitted by the Government servant and record its findings before proceedings further in the matter as specified in sub-rules (5) and (6)".
Sub-Rule (5) "If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty".
Sub-Rule (6) "If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed".
(Emphasis supplied)
15. It can be seen from sub rule 2 that it is mandatory for the Disciplinary Authority to forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own 34 OA.684/2024 tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant . Thus, sub rule 2 makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority is duty bound to forward the report of the Inquiry Officer to the applicant with his reasons. However, it is evident that the applicant was not provided the copy of the Inquiry Officer's report and the Disciplinary Authority's views. The applicant was provided with the Inquiry Officer's report only on 18.08.2022 after receipt of the 2nd stage advice of the CVC. Thus, the decision to issue the disagreement note cannot be said to be of the Disciplinary Authority but has been issued as per the direction of the CVC as the Disciplinary Authority has not expressed any views on the Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 Inquiry Officer's report whether he agrees with it or disagrees with it before forwarding the same to the CVC for 2nd stage advice. Since the report of the Inquiry Officer was not provided to the applicant and his comments were not obtained before forwarding the same to the CVC for second stage advice and CVC recommendations were prepared behind the back of the 35 OA.684/2024 applicant without his participation the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Another, 1993 (1) SCC 13. It will be helpful to extract herein the para 5 of the judgement as under:
"5.Reliance was placed on Sub-rule 5 of Rule 50 which reads as under:
(5) Orders made by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appointing Authority as the case may be under Sub-rules (3) and (4) shall be communicated to the employee concerned, who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of inquiry, if any.
It was urged that copy of the inquiry report having been supplied to the respondent the rule was complied with and the High Court committed an error in coming to conclusion that principle of natural justice was violated. Learned Additional Solicitor General urged that the principle of natural justice having been incorporated and the same having been observed the Court was not justified in misinterpreting the rule. The learned Counsel urged that the Bank was very fair to the respondent and the disciplinary authority after application of mind and careful analysis of the material on record on its own evaluation, Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 uninfluenced by the CVC recommendation passed the order. It was emphasised that if the exercise would have been mechanical the Disciplinary Authority would not have disagreed with CVC recommendations on punishment. Learned Counsel submitted that, in any case, the Disciplinary Authority having passed detailed order discussing every material on record and the respondent having filed appeal there was no prejudice caused to him. None of these submissions are of any help. The order is vitiated not because of mechanical exercise of powers or for non-supply of the inquiry report but for relying and acting on material which was not only irrelevant but could 36 OA.684/2024 not have been looked into. Purpose of supplying document is to contest its veracity or give explanation. Effect of non- supply of the report of Inquiry Officer before imposition of punishment need not be gone into nor it is necessary to consider validity of sub-rule 5. But non-supply of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back of respondent without his participation, and one does not know on what material which was not only sent to the Disciplinary Authority but was examined and relied on, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry. From the letter produced by the respondent, the authenticity of which has been verified by the learned Additional Solicitor General, it appears the Bank turned down the request of the respondent for a copy of CVC recommendation as, 'The correspondence with the Central Vigilance Commission is a privileged communication and cannot be forwarded as the order passed by the Appointing Authority deals with the recommendation of the CVC which is considered sufficient'. Taking action against an employee on confidential document which is the foundation of order exhibits complete misapprehension about the procedure that is required to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority. May be that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded its own findings and it may be coincidental that reasoning and basis of returning the finding of guilt are same as in the CVC report but it being a material obtained behind back of the respondent without his knowledge or supplying of any copy to him the High Court in our opinion did not commit any error in quashing the order. Non-supply of the Vigilance report was one of the grounds taken in appeal. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 But that was so because the respondent prior to service of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority did not have any occasion to know that CVC had submitted some report against him. The submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General that CVC recommendations are confidential copy, of which, could not be supplied cannot be accepted. Recommendations of Vigilance prior to initiation of proceedings are different than CVC recommendation which was the basis of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority."
[Emphasis supplied] 37 OA.684/2024 15.1. Similarly in the case of Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 26 as under:-
"26. In our opinion the learned Single Judge and consequently the Division Bench of the High Court did not pose unto themselves the correct question. The matter can be viewed from two angles. Despite limited jurisdiction a civil court, it was entitled to interfere in a case where the report of the enquiry officer is based on no evidence. In a suit filed by a delinquent employee in a civil court as also a writ court, in the event the findings arrived at in the departmental proceedings are questioned before it, it should keep in mind the following: (1) the enquiry officer is not permitted to collect any material from outside sources during the conduct of the enquiry. [ State of Assam & Anr. V. Mahendra Kumar Das & Ors.[ (1970) 1 SCC 709 : AIR 1970 SC 1255] (2) In a domestic enquiry fairness in the procedure is a part of the principles of natural justice [Khem Chand V. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1958 SC 300 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta, (1969) 3 SCC 775]. (3) Exercise of discretionary power involve two elements (i) objective and (ii) subjective and existence of the exercise of an objective element is a condition precedent for exercise of the subjective element. [ K.L. Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 Tripathi V. State of Bank of India & Ors. [ (1984) 1 SCC 43 : AIR 1984 SC 273]. (4) It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules of the principles of natural justice which depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but the concept of fair play in action is the basis. [ Sawai Singh V. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1986 SC 995] (5) The enquiry officer is not permitted to travel beyond the charges and any punishment imposed on the basis of a finding which was not the subject matter of the charges is wholly illegal. [Director (Inspection & quality Control) Export Inspection Council of India & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Kumar Mitra & Ors. [1987 (2) CLJ 344]. (6) Suspicion or presumption 38 OA.684/2024 cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry. The writ court is entitled to interfere with the findings of the fact of any tribunal or authority in certain circumstances. [ Central Bank of India Ltd. V. Prakash Chand Jain, AIR 1969 SC 983, Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Others, (1999) 2 SCC 10]."
[Emphasis supplied] 15.2 We further find that the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Yogesh Ochhavlal Shah Vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No.101/2006 decided on 11th October, 2006, All India Services Law Journal V-2007(2)90 has held that disagreement note issued at the behest of the CVC cannot be upheld and the same was quashed. It will be helpful to extract herein paras 25 to 29 of the order as under:
"25. Neither the CVC advice nor the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement discloses the convincing reasons. CVC advice refers to DG (Vigilance) advice, which is not brought on record. The reply also does not justify as to on what evidence the Disciplinary Authority came to a conclusion, different from his tentative conclusion. It has been indicated in para 19 above that apart from change of Milan Jackson Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: few words the disagreement note is a carbon copy of CVC advice.
Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1
26. The DG/Vigilance, as the name signifies, in a DG rank officer. The Disciplinary Authority is a Commissioner rank officer. There is also the intervening rank of Chief Commissioner. The Disciplinary Authority initially advices exoneration.
27. The Apex court in Karjagi's case had reiterated that UPSC advice is advisory, not biding and that UPSC does not act as Appellate Authority of D.A./E.O. The advice is not binding. It further held that no third party either the Government or CVC can advice the Disciplinary Authority 39 OA.684/2024 on how the exercise its quasi-judicial power. It struck down the circulars issued by Ministry of Finance and Syndicate Bank.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in V. Sai Baba's case noted that CVO was of GM rank while the D.A. was of inferior rank. The D.A. had initially advised imposition of lesser punishment but later on imposed the punishment.
28. It is true that the present matter is only at the stage of disagreement note. But as per Para 6 of the guidelines the D.A. cannot exonerate and has to send that matter back for reconsideration.
29. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that this is a fit case to be interfered with as the Disciplinary Authority has issued the disagreement note on the dictates of CVC and without coming to an independent finding. We accordingly quash and set aside the disagreement note. In the result, the disciplinary proceedings also stands quashed. There shall be no order as to costs."
[Emphasis supplied]
16. We are conscious of the fact that the courts have limited jurisdiction in the matter of the disciplinary proceedings. However, the process of disciplinary proceedings can always be looked into whether the proper procedure has been followed, Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: whether the same has been conducted as per the rules and Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 whether the principle of natural justice have been adhered to.
17. Thus, when viewed from the above angles, we find that the entire process has been vitiated because of the long delay, none adhere to provisions of sub rule 2 of rule 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1968 and non-supply of the copy of the 40 OA.684/2024 Inquiry Officer's report and non obtaining of comments of the applicant before sending it to the CVC for second stage advice.
18. In normal circumstances, we would have remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority. However, considering the fact that the applicant has retired from service on 30.04.2018 and entire process has been vitiated, we are of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, the same is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of withheld pension, amount of Gratuity, Commutation and Leave Encashment alongwith interest @ applicable on the GPF within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
19. The Original Application is allowed in terms of above direction. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
Digitally signed by Milan Jackson Milan Jackson Alphanso Location: Alphanso Date: 2025.11.27 19:14:22+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.1 (Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna) Member (J) Member (A) H/ma.