Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
James Mathai vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation ... on 25 February, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A.No.82/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
O.A. No.82/2026
Dated this the 25th Day of February, 2026
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. Shri James Mathai
Son of Late Shri Mathai Samuel,
Aged 54 years, Serving as
Senior SSA in the office of RO, Rajkot
Of the respondents,
Residing at 'Aditya'. Kerala Park,
Nr. T. N. Rao College, Opp. Family Mart,
University Road,
Rajkot - 360007.
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.S. Trivedi)
Versus
1. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
O/o CPFC,
Employees Provident Fund Head Office,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Bhikhaji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066.
2. The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (HQ)
HR Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Bhikaiji Cama Place,
New Delhi - 110066.
3. The Deputy Director (Vigilance),
O/o Deputy Director (Vigilance),
ZVD West Zone, Bandra,
Mumbai - 400050.
4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
O/o The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
2026.03.12
PRATIK VYAS
17:48:56+05'30'
:: 2 :: O.A.No.82/2026
Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, Govt. of India, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Nr.RBI,
Income Tax Circle, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad - 380014.
5. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
O/o The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, Govt. of India,
Panchayat Nagar Chowk, University Road,
Rajkot - 360005.
.......Respondents
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per : Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
1. In the instant OA, the applicant being aggrieved with the Charge Memorandum dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure A/1) issued by the Respondent No. 4 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985 seeking relief for quashing and setting aside the same.
2. Mr. M.S. Trivedi learned counsel for the applicant submits that on receipt of the charge memorandum dated 08.01.2026 the applicant submitted his representation on 05.02.2026 wherein by citing various points and grounds he denied the charges levelled against him and requested the Disciplinary Authority to quash the memorandum dated 08.01.2026 ab-initio in the interest of justice. 2.1 Since, the applicant has not received any communication from the Disciplinary Authority, till date on his representation; he has a serious apprehension that without considering his representation the 2026.03.12 PRATIK VYAS 17:48:56+05'30' :: 3 :: O.A.No.82/2026 Disciplinary Authority will initiate the departmental inquiry against him. Therefore, at this stage, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.
3. In support of the prayer sought in the OA, learned counsel for the applicant mainly submitted as under:-
3.1 That the impugned charge memorandum dated 08.01.2026 issued by the Respondent No. 4 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 which has been made applicable to employees of the Central Board vide regulation 16 of Employees Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2025.
3.2 It is stated that the alleged Charge No. 1 of the charge memorandum is that while the applicant was working as Caretaker at RO, Rajkot during the period from 2022-23 to 2023-24. It was alleged that the applicant inititated the proposals and did not mention the proper instructions / provisions / rules in violation of the various provisions of GFR and delegation of financial power during the procurements under Minor Work, Fixture & Furniture, Office Equipment and Computerization head as well as violated the provisions prescribed under Head Office instructions dated 20.03.2019 while submission of the proposal for procurement under Minor Work Head and by the aforesaid act of omission and commission, the applicant failed to mainted absolute integrity, displayed lack of devotion to duty and thereby violated the provisions prescribed under the Rule 3(1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
2026.03.12 PRATIK VYAS 17:48:56+05'30' :: 4 :: O.A.No.82/2026 3.3 It is submitted that the charge leveled against the applicant are vague in nature and precise to the extent that which instructions / guidelines of GFR the applicant had not brought to the notice of the higher authority. Further, by relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty V/s. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752, learned counsel for the applicant submits that inquiry is not permissible for such type of vague charges, as the same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make out an effective defense as he will be unaware of the exact nature of the allegations against him. 3.4 Further, learned counsel for the applicant submits that alleged charge mentioned in the Article 2 is that while submitting the proposal for extension to the then Contractors who were engaged for supply of manpower at RO, Rajkot by violating the provisions prescribed under Rule 225 (xv) of GFR 2017 and CVC Circular dated 06.11.2008. The said charge is also not tenable as the same is vague in nature. 3.5 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is holding the lowest post in the hierarchy and working as Senior SSA, above the said post there is a post of Section Supervisor, APFC, RPFC-II and RPFC-I who are connected and associated in the process. Thus, the applicant is singled out and made scapegoat in the present case which requires consideration by this Tribunal. 3.6 It is submitted that the applicant being a caretaker is required to submit proposal for proposed work before the authority for administrative approval. After administrative approval of the said 2026.03.12 PRATIK VYAS 17:48:56+05'30' :: 5 :: O.A.No.82/2026 proposal, the provisions of GFR or related instructions are required to be brought to the notice of the higher authority. In this regard, it is submitted that the higher authorities have considered the aspect and had approved the proposals which were submitted by the applicant at the relevant time is annexed hereto and marked as (Annexure A3) to this petition collectively. In fact, prior to payment of the work after payment of the work, pre audit and post audit was also done and the same was approved at the relevant time. Therefore, the alleged charges are not tenable.
3.7 Further, it is submitted that at no point of time either the higher authorities or the audit branch had either pointed out about the not bringing out the aspect of financial powers or exceeding the financial powers. On the contrary, it is required to be noted that the witnesses who are cited as witnesses as the present impugned charge sheet against the applicant i.e. the then RPFC-I, RO Rajkot and the then RPFC-II RO Rajkot are the officers who have sanctioned and approved the proposal which were submitted by the applicant at the relevant time. Therefore, in the administrative work of the office which is collective decision in the nature for which the applicant alone cannot be held responsible. Thus, the charges are vague in nature and not tenable 3.8 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no any administrative or financial objection or query raised by any office at the relevant time. In fact, as per authentic information of the applicant due to the investigation done by the vigilance branch in past 2026.03.12 PRATIK VYAS 17:48:56+05'30' :: 6 :: O.A.No.82/2026 and on the basis of the opinion, recommendations and advice of the vigilance branch, the present decision to initiate departmental proceedings against the applicant is taken, which is neither legal nor permissible in the eyes of law. Therefore, to ascertain, verify and to satisfy the conscious of the tribunal, the respondents are requires to be directed to produce file / papers on which decision is taken by the D.A.
(i). To initiate departmental proceedings against the applicant.
(ii). File / papers on which impugned charge sheet is approved by the D.A. Thus, from perusal of the same, it will become crystal clear that impugned action on the part of the respondents is neither legal nor valid or justify in the eyes of law.
3.9 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the work which was done in the year 2022-2023 and for which pre audit / post audit was also done and for the same impugned action on the part of the respondents regarding issuance of impugned memo dtd. 8/1/2026 after a period of more than 3 years without any whisper about delay for issuance of the same as well as without any justified, satisfactory explanation for the same the same is not permissible in the eyes of law. In support of the same, the applicant refer and rely the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M. V. Bijlani V/s. Union of India & Othrs. reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88 as well as the decision in case of M. Elangovan V/s. The Trichy District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. reported (13) in 2006 (2) CTC 635 and other 2026.03.12 PRATIK VYAS 17:48:56+05'30' :: 7 :: O.A.No.82/2026 similar decisions which are considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of L. T. Palanisamy V/s. The State Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others in writ petition No. 14071 of 2014 decided on 21/04/2022 is annexed hereto and marked as (Annexure A5) to this OA."
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record.
5. The applicant herein while working as Senior SSA, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Office, Rajkot has been served with charge memorandum dated 08.01.2026 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is noticed that the provisions stipulated in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are made applicable to employees of the Central Board vide regulation 16 of Employees Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2025.
5.1 As noted herein above, vide charge memorandum dated 08.01.2026, the applicant has been called upon to submit his written statement of defense before the Disciplinary Authority in respect to the charges levelled against him in the statement of articles of charges (Annexure - I attached to the charge memorandum). In the statement of imputation of misconduct (Annexure - II attached to the charge memorandum). It is alleged against the applicant that while he was posted as Caretaker at RO Rajkot during the period from 2022- 2023/2023-2024, he was responsible for the procurement of goods, services and works. He violated the instructions issued by the HO vide letter dated 20.03.2019 while procurement under minor work head. Further, he did not segregate the work with the help of Junior 2026.03.12 PRATIK VYAS 17:48:56+05'30' :: 8 :: O.A.No.82/2026 Engineer as directed by HO vide instructions dated 20.03.2019 and not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 139 of GFR, 2017 while initiation and completion of procurements under minor work head. The details of procurements made under minor work head by the applicant in violation of the prescribed procedure and instructions and the said acts of omission and commission displayed lack of devotion to duty. Further, it was alleged that he failed to adhere to provisions stipulated under 225 (xv) of General Financial Rules 2017 and the instructions contained in the CVC circular dated 06.11.2008, the applicant granted extension to the agencies. Thus, for such lack of devotion to duty, he violated the provisions prescribed under the CCS (Conduct Rules) 1964 which are mutattis mutandis applicable to the employees of the Central Board of Trustees, EPF in terms of provisions stipulated in Employees Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2025. Along with the charge memorandum, the applicant is also supplied list of documents based on which charges were framed against and also list of witnesses. 5.2 On receipt of the charge memorandum dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure A/1), the applicant herein has submitted his detailed representation dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure A/2) before the DA through proper channel whereby he denied all the charges of imputations/misconduct levelled against him and in support of it by referring the detailed procedure as prescribed for procurement sources and its limitation has submitted various grounds that the alleged failure to adhere to the procedure is practically not possible and in this 2026.03.12 PRATIK VYAS 17:48:56+05'30' :: 9 :: O.A.No.82/2026 regard no such error was pointed out by the pre-audit cell, accordingly, he requested the Disciplinary Authority to quash the memorandum ab-initio in the interest of justice. The said representation of the applicant dated 05.02.2026 submitted before the Disciplinary Authority in terms of directions contained in the charge memorandum as well as in compliance of sub rule 4 (b) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
6. It can be seen that before the disciplinary authority consider and take the decision in terms of provision of sub rule 5 and sub rule 6 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 regarding the manner in which he intend to inquire into alleged article of charges levelled against the applicant and pendency of the said representation of the applicant before the Disciplinary Authority, at this stage, the applicant with a apprehension that the Disciplinary Authority shall initiate a departmental inquiry against him has approached this Tribunal by way of present OA challenging the legality and validity of the charge memorandum.
7. The core submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the charges are vague in nature since the same does not indicate which GFR Instructions/Guidelines the applicant did not follow nor any specific details in this regard has been mentioned in the charge memorandum to sustain the alleged charges levelled against him. Further, the higher authorities have considered the proposals and have approved the same at the relevant time. The witnesses cited in the impugned charge memorandum are the officers who have sanctioned 2026.03.12 PRATIK VYAS 17:48:56+05'30' :: 10 :: O.A.No.82/2026 and approved the proposals which were submitted by the applicant at the relevant time. Further, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated after three years of the alleged proposal submitted by the applicant and the said delay has not been explained in the charge memorandum. Therefore, the charges are vague and not tenable as also the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated due to gross delay in initiation of action against the delinquent official.
According to the learned counsel the applicant has serious apprehension that the disciplinary authority without considering the various grounds stated by him in his representation for the purpose of denial of the charges and request to drop the proceedings may initiate the departmental inquiry in respect to the alleged charges which are vague in nature.
7.1 In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 21.04.2022 in W.P. Nos.14071 & 24327/2014 (L.T. Palanisamy Vs. Secretary of Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court by referring the law laid down in the judgment of Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Educational Society [reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515] and M.V.Bijlani Vs. UOI & Ors. [reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88] held that apart from the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings since the charges are unspecified/not specific and thus they are vague. Accordingly, the same were quashed.
2026.03.12 PRATIK VYAS 17:48:56+05'30' :: 11 :: O.A.No.82/2026
8. At the outset it is apt to mention that it is a well settled law that the Court/Tribunal should not generally set aside the charge memorandum/disciplinary proceeding in a routine manner. The Charge Memorandum 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. Originally a Writ Application does not lie against a charge memorandum or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction / competence to do so. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the chargesheet be quashed at a initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issue. Exception to it if the charge memorandum has been issued by an incompetent authority or the charges which are not tenable in the eye of law such as the Government servant while discharging his duties as a quasi judicial authority has passed an order in good faith and without there being any vice of mala fide or demand of gratification, the Court/Tribunal can examine the challenge to the legality of charge memorandum / disciplinary proceedings.
9. In the present case, as noted hereinabove, undisputedly, specific charges along with details fo violation of particular rules and the instructions contained in the office memorandum / CVC directions has been provided in the statement of imputation to maintain the 2026.03.12 PRATIK VYAS 17:48:56+05'30' :: 12 :: O.A.No.82/2026 alleged charges the details of proposals wherein the applicant did not follow the provisions of applicable rules and the instructions along with list of documents and the list of witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be said that the charges are not specific or clear and thus the submission of learned counsel that the charges are vague in nature is not acceptable. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned the proposition of the law laid down in the said judgment cannot be disputed but in the facts and circumstances of the present the same is not helpful to the applicant for the reason that the statement of articles-I and II (Annex.-I to the charge memorandum) as well the statement of imputation in support of the alleged charges, are very specific, clear and in support of the said alleged charges the list of RUDs along with list of witnesses have been supplied to the delinquent i.e. applicant herein. 9.1 At this stage, it is suffice to state that on receipt of the impugned charge memorandum the applicant has submitted his representation / written statement of defence dated 05.02.2026 before the disciplinary authority in terms of provisions of sub rule 4 (b) of rule 14 and before the disciplinary authority decided and take any decision in terms of sub rule 5 and 6 of rule 14 of the CCS Rules, the applicant has rushed this Tribunal on the ground of his apprehension that the disciplinary authority will initiate departmental inquiry against him.
9.2 It can be seen that the applicant has approached this Tribunal not against any adverse order but rather he has an apprehension that 2026.03.12 PRATIK VYAS 17:48:56+05'30' :: 13 :: O.A.No.82/2026 he has to face the departmental inquiry following the issuance of chargememo. At this juncture neither the genuineness of the alleged charges levelled in the impugned charge memorandum could be adjudicated upon during the pendency of any decision of the disciplinary authority in terms of sub rule 5 and 6 of rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
9.3 In our considered view, in absence of any material to demonstrate that the charge memorandum was issued by an incompetent authority, this Tribunal decline to interfere with the pending disciplinary proceedings at the premature stage of consideration of representation / statement of defence by the disciplinary authority in terms of sub rule 5 and 6 of rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,1965.
9.4 In view of the above discussions, even no cause of action arose and rather the applicant has approached this Tribunal prematurely, thus, the O.A. lacks merit and, accordingly, the same is dismissed at the stage of admission in limine.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pv/
2026.03.12
PRATIK VYAS
17:48:56+05'30'