Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh Mahavir Pandit vs Housing And Urban Affairs on 29 August, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.2561 of 2025
Orders reserved on : 12.08.2025
Orders pronounced on : 29.08.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
SH. MAHAVIR PANDIT
Executive Engineer (Elect.),
Central Public Works Department
Aged about 59 years,
S/o Late Sh. Rambilas Pandit
R/o Flat No. K-1001, 10h Floor, Greenarch Society. Tech Zone-
4. Greater Noida West, UP- 201 306
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Rohan Taneja)
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011
2. CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Through its Director General,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 01I
3. UNION PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi - 110069
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri R K Jain for R-1 and R-2, Shri A S Singh for
Shri R V Sinha for R-3)
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'
Item No.15/C-5 2 OA No.2561/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"8. Reliefs:
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Applicant respectfully pray that this Hon‟ble Tribunal be pleased to quash:
A. Order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Under Secretary of the Respondent No. 1 implementing the imposition of penalty qua the Applicant;
B. Order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Hon'ble President imposing penalty against the Applicant;
C. Memorandum dated 21.08.2024 i.e. the Advice of the Respondent No. 3 in the disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant;
D. Memorandum dated 06.06.2022 i.e. the disagree note of the disciplinary authority on the findings of the Inquiry Report against the Applicant;
E. Memorandum of Charge dated 20.05.2020 issued to the Applicant;
F. And grant all consequential benefits with compensatory interest.
Any other relief that the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The Applicant joined the Respondent No.2 as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 06.07.1991. Thereafter, he was promoted as an Executive Engineer (E) on 27.12.2010. While working as Executive Engineer (E) in ECD-II, CPWD, New Delhi from 04.06.2013 to 01.06.2015, the applicant was in-charge of various works that were undertaken by him during the said period.
2.1 The applicant was served with a Memorandum dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure A6), alleging lapses on his part in the discharge of duties while he was posted in ECD-II, CPWD. The said Show Cause Notice was duly replied by the applicant vide letter dated 24.12.2018 (Annexure No. A7) denying the alleged allegations. However, 0n 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 3 OA No.2561/2025 20.05.2020, approximately 5 years after his transfer from the said posting of ECD-II, the applicant was served with the Charge Memo which contained five articles of charge proposed to be levelled against him. The same also contains an Office Memorandum dated 10.01.2020 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission i.e. the First Stage.
2.2 On 23.06.2020 (Annexure No. A8), the applicant preferred detailed response to the allegations contained in the Charge Memo. The applicant also filed its list of documents on which reliance was placed (Annexure No. A9). The applicant conducted detailed cross examination of the Sole Witness named in the Charge Memo (Annexure No. A10). The Inquiry Report in the instant matter was furnished on 15.06.2021 wherein all the Charges were held to be "not proved" (Annexure No. A11). However, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 06.06.2022 (Annexure A4), considered the report of the Inquiry Officer and, while tentatively disagreeing with the findings of the IO, held the first Article as partially proved and all the remaining Articles of charge as proved. The Applicant tendered a detailed representation to the disagree note vide letter dated 05.07.2022 (Annexure No. A12). Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority referred the matter to the UPSC for its advice and the UPSC tendered its advice on 21.08.2024 wherein the penalty of reduction to the next lower post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) till 30.07.2026, with a bar to further promotions and with further directions that during the period of penalty, the applicant will not earn increments of pay and that such reduction to lower post will not have effect on pensionary benefits was recommended. Aggrieved, the applicant submitted a detailed representation against the UPSC advice vide letter dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure No. A13). The disciplinary authority passed the Punishment Order on 10.06.2025 (Annexure No. A2) whereby the punishment advised by the UPSC was imposed upon the applicant. The said Order was implemented vide Order dated 30.06.2025 of the Under Secretary (Annexure No. A1). Hence, this OA.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their replies opposing the claim of the applicant. The 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 4 OA No.2561/2025 applicant has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent no.3.
4. Shri Rohan Taneja, learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the impugned charge Memorandum dated 20.5.2020 has been issued by the Disciplinary Authority without application of mind.
4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to Annexure IV appended with the impugned Memorandum of Charge to show that there is only one witness named in the List of Witnesses i.e. „Sh. VS Chauhan, Executive Engineer (Vig.) 31, CPWD, New Delhi - Investigating Officer.‟ Other than the Investigating Officer, who is a member of the Vigilance Department, there is no other witness in the Charge Memo to prove the charges against the applicant. It is a settled principle of law that disciplinary proceedings which are initiated by way of a Charge Memo must contain witnesses, who can prove charges against the Charged Officer. It is also trite law that an investigating officer, who is from the vigilance department, cannot prove the contents of the Charge Memo and/or the documents appended thereto. The said position of law is substantiated from the fact that during cross examination, out of the 77 questions put to the Witness i.e. PW 1, he responded with 'matter of record' about 47 times and with 'Don't remember 28 times. Questions and Answers to Q.10, 12, 13, 14 and 16. The same are reproduced as under:-
"10. Have you called the documents as listed in the Charge Memo (PE- to PE-37) or was already called by your predecessor when you joined?
A.10. I do not remember.
Q.12. Have you seen the originals of these documents? A.12. I do not remember now.
Q.13. How could you assure that these are genuine documents (Genuiness with the reference that these were the downloaded documents)?
A.13. Please read answer 12.
Q.14. I put to you that whatever papers the concerned EE (E) ECO-1I sent to Vigilance and you considered as genuine without examination from your end. Please comment.
A. 14. Please read answer 12.
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'
Item No.15/C-5 5 OA No.2561/2025
Q.16. Why the prosecution has not named the EE (E) who sent the documents to Vigilance to prove the documents (PE-1 to PE-
37)?
A.16. I do not remember now.
4.1.1 In support of the above contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the Order/Judgment of this Tribunal in Kunwar Fateh Singh v. UOI, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine CAT 377.
4.2 Learned counsel further contended that the Inquiry Officer, inter alia, held Charges to be not proved because the documents relied upon by the Presenting Officer were not proved before the Inquiry Officer and therefore, without proving the documents, the Charge could not be held to be proved. Further, whilst the Disciplinary Authority overturned the findings of the Inquiry Officer, however, it is incorrect to state that the documents are unproven without assigning any reasons to justify how it has come to the conclusion As it is apparent from the documents on record that the documents appended in support of the Charge Memo were unproved;
4.3 Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the Inqui1y Officer held the following Charges to be not proved as the specific documents, which are provided hereinbelow were held to be not proved:
a. Article 3 was held to be not proved as PE-22 was an unproven document;
b. Article 4 was held to be not proved as PE-29 was an unproven document;
c. Article 5 was held to be not proved as PE-29 was an unproven document;
4.3.1 Therefore, whilst the Disciplinary Authority, in its Disagree Note, without assigning any reasons stated that the documents stands proved, however, specifically in its explanation for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, as it never states that PE-22 and/or PE- 29 stands proved. For other documents, it is stated that the said documents have been proved, as the same have been duly authenticated by the concerned officer, who downloaded them from the e-portal, however, the same consciously does not give reference to 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 6 OA No.2561/2025 PE-22 and/or PE-29. As such despite being aware that PE-22 and/or PE-29 does not stand proved, the Disciplinary Authority, in its disagree note has held that the Articles of Charges based on the said documents stand proved against the applicant.
4.3.2 In support of above contentions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. PNB and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, and submitted that the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that mere production/tendering of documents by a witness is not sufficient, there must be a witness „to prove the contents thereof.
4.3.3 Further, it is contended that even the officer, who has „duly authenticated‟ the documents, i.e., Assistant Engineer (D) - III, Vigilance Unit, CPWD was not named as a witness and it was another unrelated Executive Engineer. Therefore, the witness was not competent to prove the documents, as has been held by the Inquiry Officer and the findings of the disagreement note of authentication is not required as per law and the same is unsustainable.
4.4 Learned counsel further submitted that Respondent No. 3 failed to apply its mind while deciding the quantum of punishment to be imposed upon the applicant while considering all the materials, objections, findings, etc. As the DOP&T‟s OM dated 10.05.2010 (Annexure No.A14) provides that 'The disciplinary proceeding being quasi-judicial in nature, the Commission tenders its advice after a thorough judicious and independent consideration of all relevant facts...‟. Further, the Inquiry Officer on two fundamental grounds had held the charges to be not proved i.e. (1 ) No evidence to establish that the applicant/Charged Officer opened the tenders; and (2) Documents presented during disciplinary proceedings were not proved. Whilst the Disciplinary Authority, albeit incorrectly, adverted to the two contentions, the Respondent No. 3 while rendering its advice completely ignores the two contentions set up by the applicant as well as the reasons/findings recorded by the inquiry officer for 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 7 OA No.2561/2025 holding that the charges to be not proved. Therefore, it is clearly seen that there was a non-application of mind on the part of the Respondent No. 3, who is entrusted with the responsibility to consider all evidences in order to advice on the quantum of punishment to be imposed upon the charged officer and the said non application of mind completely vitiates the UPSC Advice, which is the basis for imposition of the impugned punishment order and thus, the said advice tendered by the respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside. Further, the respondent No.3 does not consider the detailed representation of the applicant submitted by him to the disagreement note dated 05.07.2022 independently.
4.4.1 In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in the case of P. Venu vs. Union of India, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 23069, wherein the Hon‟ble Kerala High Court ruled that punishment order cannot merely reiterate the factual matrix, it must independently consider all relevant factors including the evidence adduced; proportionality of punishment, conclusion, etc. In the present case, there is not even a single observation and the Disciplinary Authority has merely agreed with everything stated by the respondent No.3.
4.5 Learned counsel for the applicant argued that major responsibility of the Disciplinary Authority while passing the punishment order is to ascertain the proportionality of the proposed punishment vis-à-vis the allegations levelled against the Charged Officer, as in the Article 1 shows that EMD value as INR 24,947.00 and a statement that „Government could have incurred loss....‟, as the charges levelled against the applicant, notwithstanding the defenses of the applicant with regard to the same, even if deemed to be true, admittedly resulted in no financial loss to the respondents. Against the same, the respondent No.3 proposed major penalty of demotion for a year, without a single statement that the same is commensurate to the allegations levelled against the applicant and the Disciplinary Authority while agreeing with the aforesaid punishment also does not comment on the proportionality and, therefore, the same is liable to be 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 8 OA No.2561/2025 set aside in view of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in P. Venu (supra), as the charges levelled against the applicant even if taken on face value are minor in nature and there are no allegations of corruption and/or any allegation that can be qualified to be serious in nature. As such the punishment awarded to the applicant is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against the applicant and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Tribunal.
4.5.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has spent approximately 15 years in the post of Executive Engineer, his promotion to Superintending Engineer was also stalled due to the pendency and the unprecedented longevity of the instant disciplinary proceedings, however, a year prior to his retirement, he has been imposed with a very grave punishment of demotion as Assistant Engineer.
4.6 Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously contended that the disciplinary proceedings in the present case suffer from inordinate and unexplained delay, both in their initiation and conclusion. It is submitted that the applicant was last posted in the concerned department in the year 2015, whereas the Charge Memorandum came to be issued only on 20.05.2020, after a lapse of nearly five years. It is further pointed out that the proceedings thereafter also reveal a pattern of laxity on the part of the disciplinary authorities as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 31.10.2018, but the Charge Memorandum followed only after a further delay of about 18 months. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.06.2021, i.e., after about 13 months. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter recorded its tentative disagreement on 06.06.2022, nearly 12 months later. The matter was then referred to the UPSC, whose advice was tendered only on 21.08.2024, after an extraordinary delay of more than 26 months. Ultimately, the punishment order was passed on 10.06.2025, i.e., nearly 10 months thereafter. Thus, the proceedings disclose (i) an initial delay of nearly five years in the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings; and (ii) a further delay of almost another five years in 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 9 OA No.2561/2025 bringing them to a conclusion. The cumulative delay of about a decade, without any justification forthcoming from the respondents, has not only vitiated the very object of timely disciplinary action but has also caused serious prejudice to the applicant, who has been compelled to undergo prolonged mental agony and expend considerable time and effort in defending stale charges.
4.7 Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the impugned penalty order suffers from the vice of being a non-speaking order, inasmuch as it fails to advert to or deal with the specific contentions raised by the applicant in his representation.
5. REPLY OF RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 25.1 Shri Ravi Kant Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, by drawing attention to the reply filed on their behalf, advanced preliminary submission that the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted strictly in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and after following due process at every stage. It is pointed out that a charge sheet was issued to the applicant vide Memorandum dated 20.05.2020 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, after obtaining the statutory advice of the Central Vigilance Commission dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure R-15). The said advice, along with the articles of charge, statement of imputations, list of documents and list of witnesses, was duly served on the applicant. The applicant submitted his written statement of defence on 23.06.2020 denying the charges.
5.2 Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer by order dated 18.08.2020 (Annexure R-16), with subsequent reappointment of the Presenting Officer on 19.02.2021 (Annexure R-17). The Inquiry Officer conducted hearings on 04.03.2021 and 05.03.2021, during which the prosecution produced 37 documents (marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-37) and the defence produced 7 documents (marked as Exhibits D-1 to D-7). The prosecution witness (PW-1) was examined at length in chief and cross- examined extensively. According to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 10 OA No.2561/2025 witness did not deny the allegations, and the applicant is selectively relying only on certain replies given in cross-examination.
5.3 The Inquiry Officer afforded full opportunity to the applicant to produce defence witnesses or to appear as his own witness, which he declined. General examination of the applicant was also conducted. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report on 15.06.2021, holding Articles I to V as "not proved."
5.4 The Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the report, recorded detailed reasons for disagreement with the findings returned by the IO in his report. By Memorandum dated 06.06.2022 (Annexure R-25), the Disciplinary Authority forwarded the Inquiry Report along with its tentative findings, wherein Part-A of Article I was agreed to as not proved, Part-B of Article I was held tentatively proved, and Articles II to V were also held tentatively proved. The applicant was invited to submit his representation, which he did on 05.07.2022.
5.5 On examination of the same, the Disciplinary Authority formed a tentative view to impose penalty and referred the matter to the UPSC for statutory advice on 08.12.2023. The UPSC, vide its advice dated 16.08.2024, concluded that Article I was partly proved, while Articles II, III, IV and V were proved. The UPSC observed that the applicant, while functioning as the competent authority, had awarded tenders to ineligible firms in violation of the terms of the NIT, manipulated EMD details, and indulged in irregularities suggestive of bias and favouritism, thereby eroding the trust reposed in him. The UPSC advised imposition of the penalty of "reduction to the next lower post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) till 30.07.2026, with bar on further promotion, denial of increments during the currency of penalty, and without affecting pensionary benefits."
5.6 The said advice was communicated to the applicant vide Memorandum dated 21.08.2024 and he was afforded opportunity to make representation, which he submitted on 04.10.2024. After due consideration of the Inquiry Report, the reasons for disagreement, the advice of the UPSC, and the representation of the applicant, the 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 11 OA No.2561/2025 Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order dated 10.06.2025 imposing the above penalty.
5.7 It is thus contended by the respondents that the proceedings were conducted strictly in compliance with law, that the applicant was afforded full and fair opportunity at every stage, and that the penalty has been imposed only after due consideration of all material facts and circumstances. Hence, there is no merit in the present Original Application, which deserves to be dismissed.
5.8 In reply to one of the grounds raised by the applicant that Charge Memo had been issued without application of mind, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated pursuant to a specific complaint dated 28.07.2015 (Annexure R-1), received in the office of the Chief Vigilance Officer, CPWD on 05.08.2015. The complaint alleged corruption in works executed at Sena Bhawan by CPWD, Electrical Division, besides raising serious concerns of threat to the security of the Army Headquarters. The complainant specifically alleged that the applicant had nexus with contractors and had irregularly considered the bids of M/s Satnam Electricals despite the expiry of validity of their Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). It was also alleged that the applicant entertained multiple tenders from M/s Satnam Electricals on the basis of a single EMD, and further accepted the tender of M/s V.K. Electricals against an EMD of only Rs. 5,000/- as against the prescribed requirement of Rs. 9,795/-. The complainant further alleged large-scale loss to the public exchequer running into crores of rupees in collusion with contractors. The complaint dated 28.07.2015 was simultaneously received through the CVC on 14.08.2015 (Annexure R-2) and through the SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi on 24.08.2015 (Annexure R-3). The CBI, while forwarding the complaint, indicated that they had not conducted any inquiry but requested reference back in case any criminal angle was established. The complainant, upon being contacted, verified his complaint on 17.08.2015 (Annexure R-5). The Vigilance Unit, CPWD, sought a report from the Chief Engineer concerned, who submitted a detailed 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 12 OA No.2561/2025 report on 04.11.2015 (Annexure R-10), opining that there was substance in the complaint warranting further investigation. A detailed investigation was thereafter undertaken by the Vigilance Unit, and a report dated 21.06.2018 concluded that the applicant had committed lapses while functioning as Executive Engineer (E) in Electrical Construction Division-II during 04.06.2013 to 01.06.2015. On scrutiny, the CVO directed submission of a more detailed report. A final investigation report was submitted on 17.10.2018, following which a Memorandum dated 31.10.2018 (Annexure A-6) was issued to the applicant seeking his explanation. The applicant sought extension of time, which was granted up to 09.12.2018, and thereafter submitted his reply dated 24.12.2018 (Annexure A-7). The case was then referred to the CVC on 29.08.2019 (Annexure R-13), and upon removal of procedural deficiencies, was again submitted with all relevant records on 02.01.2020 (Annexure R-14). The CVC, vide its advice dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure R-15), recommended initiation of major penalty proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Accordingly, with the approval of the Disciplinary Authority, a charge memorandum dated 20.05.2020 (Annexure A-5) was issued to the applicant along with the statement of imputations, list of documents, list of witnesses, and a copy of the CVC‟s advice. As such, learned counsel contended that the charge Memorandum dated 20.05.2020 was issued only after a detailed investigation, consideration of the applicant‟s explanation to the show cause memorandum, and after obtaining statutory advice of the CVC. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the charge memorandum has been issued without application of mind is wholly untenable.
5.9 In reply to the another contention of the applicant that there was no witness to sustain the articles of charge, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that Shri V.S. Chauhan, EE (V)-31, CPWD, was cited as the sole prosecution witness in Annexure-IV to the charge memorandum. Shri Chauhan, being the Investigating Officer, was fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 13 OA No.2561/2025 was competent to depose and prove the documents, which were received through official channels and carefully examined during investigation. It is contended that there is no bar on such a witness being examined, particularly as the documents in question constituted official records forming primary evidence. Further, it is submitted that the said witness was examined in chief by the Presenting Officer on 04.03.2021, answering 53 questions, and was thereafter cross- examined by the defence on 05.03.2021, answering 77 questions. The witness replied to all queries, and at no stage did he deny the allegations levelled against the applicant. The applicant is, however, attempting to draw selective inferences only from certain replies given in cross-examination, while ignoring the testimony as a whole, including the replies during examination-in-chief (Annexure A-10). The respondents also pointed out that the Inquiry Officer provided the applicant full opportunity to defend himself, including the liberty to produce defence witnesses or to appear as his own witness. However, the applicant declined both. During the general examination, the Inquiry Officer put five questions to the applicant (Annexure R-24), but the applicant only gave mechanical replies, stating that he would submit his defence in the written brief, instead of furnishing any substantive explanation to the charges. Accordingly, it is contended that the proceedings were fair and in accordance with law, the prosecution evidence was duly proved through PW-1, and the plea of the applicant that there was no witness to prove the charges is devoid of merit.
5.10 With regard to another contention of the applicant that the documents could not be proved as there was no witness other than the Investigating Officer, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 submitted that the Inquiry Officer, in his report dated 15.06.2021 at para 6.1.3, merely observed that a document from M/s ITI Limited, which hosts the e-tender portal, had not been placed in the prosecution documents to establish the identity of the bid opener from his digital signature. It was not the case of the Inquiry Officer that the documents relied upon were unproven. Rather, he found a gap 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 14 OA No.2561/2025 between the prosecution documents and, applying a narrow standard, held the charges not proved. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer failed to apply the principle of "preponderance of probability" which governs departmental proceedings. Further, the Disciplinary Authority, while accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of Part-A of Article I, disagreed with the findings in respect of Part-B of Article I and Articles II to V, and gave detailed reasons for such disagreement in its Memorandum dated 06.06.2022 (Annexure R-
25). The Disciplinary Authority noted that the prosecution documents such as bid details, EMD view, and reason sheets were computer- generated and downloaded from the e-tender portal, which remain preserved in the system for future reference. These documents (PE-3, PE-4, PE-5, PE-11, PE-12, PE-13, PE-19, PE-20, PE-21, PE-26, PE-27, PE-28, PE-33, PE-34 and PE-35) were duly authenticated by the concerned officers who downloaded them from the portal. Hence, the applicant‟s contention that the documents were unproven or unsigned is wholly untenable. The Disciplinary Authority also recorded that the applicant had not adduced any evidence during the inquiry to show that he had delegated the task of opening tenders to any other Assistant Engineer. Accordingly, the finding of the Inquiry Officer that it was not substantiated that the tenders had been opened by the applicant, was found unsustainable. Moreover, the tenders were in fact accepted by the applicant, and as the tender-accepting authority, it was his bounden duty to ensure proper evaluation of bids, including verification of EMDs, and to safeguard the legitimate rights of all bidders.
5.10.1 In support of above submission, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General, ICMR vs. Dr. Anil Kumar, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 97, and submitted that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the said case held that when the genuineness of the documents has not been disputed, there is no need to examine the author of the same.
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'
Item No.15/C-5 15 OA No.2561/2025
5.11 On another contention of the applicant that disagreement note
failed to consider the specific documents that were held by Inquiry Officer to be not proved, the learned counsel submitted that the Inquiry Officer himself agreed that scanned copy of uploaded EMD (PE-22) by M/s V.K Electrics Works was less than the required amount. However, held the charge as not proved on the pretext that this document is an unproven document and cannot be relied upon to prove the charge levelled against the applicant. This finding of IO is not agreed due to the following reasons that the disciplinary authority also noted that the prosecution documents like bid details, EMD view, reason sheet are computer generated and downloaded documents from the e-tender portal. These documents remain in etender data base for any future reference. All the prosecution documents downloaded from the portal have been duly authenticated by the concerned office, who downloaded from the e-portal (PE-22 & PE-29). Hence, the finding recorded by the IO that these documents are unproven documents and not signed by the applicant is incorrect. The Disciplinary Authority also noted that the applicant has not given any evidence during the course of inquiry that he has delegated the work of opening of the tenders to other AE‟s. Thus, finding of the IO that it is not getting substantiate that the tenders has been opened by the applicant is not a correct finding and hence not agreed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is further reiterated by the learned counsel that the tenders were accepted by the applicant. Thus, being tender accepting authority, it was the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the bids received against the tenders were properly evaluated, including the checking of the EMDs. It was the duty of the applicant, being tender accepting authority, to ensure while accepting any tender that no bidders is deny of his legitimate right. The applicant has wrongly submitted that prosecution document (PE-29) was an unproven document and, hence, the IO has not proved Article-V of the charge Memorandum as the document PE-29 is nowhere related to the Article-V of the charge Memorandum.
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'
Item No.15/C-5 16 OA No.2561/2025
5.11.1 Learned counsel further emphasized that the Disciplinary Authority, in its disagreement note dated 06.06.2022, has clearly recorded that the documents (PE-3, PE-4, PE-5, PE-11, PE-12, PE-13, PE-19, PE-20, PE-21, PE-26, PE-27, PE-28, PE-33, PE-34, and PE-35) being downloaded from the e-tender portal and duly authenticated, do not require further proof. On the same analogy, PE-22 and PE-29 also stand duly proved, as they are similarly downloaded and authenticated documents.
5.11.2 Learned counsel further submitted that during the preliminary hearing held on 01.09.2020 (Annexure R-18), the applicant, at para 6 of the daily order sheet, acknowledged that he had received copies of all the listed documents as per Annexure-III of the charge memorandum. At that stage, the Inquiry Officer specifically asked the applicant whether he desired to inspect the originals of the listed documents; however, the applicant declined the opportunity. This fact was duly communicated to him vide letter dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure R-19). In response, the applicant, by his letter dated 19.11.2020 (Annexure R-20), requested the Inquiry Officer to fix dates for regular hearing, without raising any objection regarding authenticity of documents. Again, by letter dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure R-21), the Inquiry Officer reiterated that the applicant had not opted to inspect the originals of the documents. Subsequently, during the regular hearings held on 04.03.2021 and 05.03.2021, the prosecution produced 37 documents listed in Annexure-III of the charge memorandum, which were marked as Exhibits PE-1 to PE-37 and taken on record. The applicant did not avail himself of the opportunity to inspect the originals of these documents at any stage. Thus, his conduct clearly establishes that he had no doubt about the authenticity or genuineness of the said documents. Further, on a perusal of the disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority, it is evident that the documents in question were duly taken into consideration. Hence, the said disagreement note cannot be said to have been issued without application of mind.
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'
Item No.15/C-5 17 OA No.2561/2025
5.12 With regard to the contention of the applicant that there was no
application of mind on the part of the UPSC/Respondent No.3 while tendering its advice on the quantum of punishment, learned counsel submitted that the UPSC, vide its advice dated 16.08.2024, has specifically recorded in para 5 that the case record, including the charge memorandum, the Inquiry Officer‟s report, the charged officer‟s representation, the Disciplinary Authority‟s disagreement note, and all other relevant material, had been carefully examined. The Commission has further recorded its distinct observations tender-wise from para 5.3 to 5.7, taking into account all five NITs involved in the case. The reliance placed by the applicant on DoP&T O.M. dated 10.05.2010 is misplaced, as the same stands modified by DoP&T O.M. No. 39011/08/2016-Estt.(B) dated 28.12.2018.
5.12.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the UPSC had duly considered the views of both the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, as recorded in the Inquiry Report and the Disagreement Note, and found that the Disciplinary Authority had correctly held the documents to be proved. The UPSC, in its advice dated 16.08.2024, noted that the applicant had awarded four tenders to M/s. Satnam Electric Works, a bidder who did not fulfill the prescribed conditions of the NIT, and a fifth tender to M/s. V.K. Electrical Works, which too was ineligible on account of non-fulfillment of the criteria. The UPSC further observed that the applicant had committed serious irregularities in the scrutiny, opening, acceptance, and rejection of the NITs, by manipulating the EMD details. Such acts clearly indicated bias and favouritism towards certain firms, in violation of established procedures. The Commission thus concluded that the applicant had not only indulged in procedural irregularities and manipulation but had also betrayed the trust reposed in him by the Department. The advice tendered by the UPSC was, therefore, considered proportionate and commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, besides being in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
5.12.2 As regards the applicant‟s reliance on his alleged representation dated 05.07.2022, it is the stand of the respondents 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 18 OA No.2561/2025 that no such representation was ever received by the Disciplinary Authority. However, the UPSC, in para 4 of its advice dated 16.08.2024, has clearly noted that the applicant had submitted a representation on 04.07.2022 against the Disagreement Note dated 06.06.2022 and the Inquiry Report dated 15.06.2021. The Commission categorically recorded that it had duly considered the said representation while tendering its statutory advice to the Disciplinary Authority.
5.13 With regard to the plea of disproportionate punishment awared to the applicant, raised by the applicant, learned counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the UPSC, in its advice dated 16.08.2024, found Article-I „partly proved‟ to the extent that the applicant wrongly accepted the tender of M/s Satnam Electric Works, and Articles-II to V fully „proved‟. As out of five tenders, four were awarded to M/s Satnam Electric Works despite their ineligibility under the NIT, while the fifth was awarded to M/s V.K. Electrical Works who also did not meet the criteria. The applicant thereby committed serious irregularities in opening, scrutiny and acceptance of tenders, including manipulation of EMD details, clearly indicative of bias and favouritism towards certain contractors, in violation of established procedures. The contention of the applicant that no financial loss occurred is untenable, since the charge Memorandum did not hinge upon pecuniary loss but on procedural manipulation and abuse of official position. The contemporaneous complaint, subsequent vigilance investigation, and the CVC‟s advice further corroborated the irregularities, cartelisation and nexus between the applicant and contractors. In these circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the UPSC‟s advice, the applicant‟s representation and all relevant material, imposed aforesaid penalty vide order dated 10.06.2025.
5.13.1 In support of above contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pathrella vs. OBC, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 572, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that there is no loss to the Bank cannot be a ground to take a lenient view for the proved misconduct. Further, by 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 19 OA No.2561/2025 granting the tender to a specific person/party by manipulating the process/record, it erases the public faith and this itself justifies the punishment awarded to the applicant. As such, the punishment is found to be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
5.14 With regard to another contention of the applicant regarding delay in initiation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appicant, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., T.N. Housing Board, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636, has categorically held that if the delay in initiation of proceedings is justified, the disciplinary action can be initiated even at a later stage. In the present case, the Articles of Charge are based on documentary evidence, which is readily available on record, and no prejudice has been caused to the applicant, as sufficient opportunities were afforded to him to submit his replies at various stages of the inquiry.
5.14.1 Learned counsel further urged that, in terms of the CVC guidelines, a charge Memorandum can be issued to a Government servant at any time during his service career for lapses committed by him. Accordingly, the charge Memorandum dated 20.05.2020 was issued to the applicant strictly in consonance with the said guidelines. The delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings, according to the respondents, was occasioned due to reasons beyond their control. The sole prosecution witness (PW-1) had undergone surgery in both eyes and was indisposed for about three months. Additionally, during the relevant period, restrictions were imposed owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, which considerably impacted attendance in offices, conduct of inquiry proceedings, and analysis of the inquiry report as well as representations submitted by the applicant. Learned consel also submitted that the applicant himself contributed to the delay by not submitting his representations within the prescribed time and consistently seeking extensions, which were liberally granted by the Disciplinary Authority in the spirit of natural justice. In the light of 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 20 OA No.2561/2025 these circumstances, the learned counsel for respondents contended that the delay in initiation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be said to be either unjustified or prejudicial to the applicant.
5.15 So far as the contention of the applicant that the impugned penalty order is a non-speaking order is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order by taking into consideration the submissions of the applicant though in brief and by giving the cogent reasons for agreeing with the UPSC‟s advice. In this regard reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, UCO Bank vs. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 695, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that when the cogent reasons have been assigned in the Disciplinary Authority‟s order while concurring with the finding, the same cannot be said to be non-speaking order.
6. REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.3, i.e., UPSC 6.1 Respondent No.3, i.e., the UPSC, in its reply has stated that it is a Constitutional body whose advice is required in disciplinary matters in terms of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution read with Regulation 5(1) of the UPSC (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1958. However, it is clarified that the Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the advice of the UPSC and takes an independent decision after considering the said advice along with all other relevant facts of the case. The advice of the Commission was sought by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vide charge Memorandum dated 20.05.2020 against the applicant. After careful consideration and taking into account all the relevant aspects of the case, the Commission, vide letter dated 16.08.2024, advised the penalty of "reduction to the next lower post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) till 30.07.2026, with a bar to further promotions and with further directions that during the period of penalty, he will not earn increments of pay and that such reduction 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 21 OA No.2561/2025 to lower post will not have effect on pensionary benefits" be imposed upon the applicant. After considering the various factors, including the advice of UPSC and representation of the applicant thereon, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 10.06.2025, imposed the same penalty as advised by UPSC. Being aggrieved from the above penalty order dated 10.06.2025, the applicant has filed the instant OA before the Tribunal.
6.2 The Commission had tendered its' advice after a thorough, judicious and independent consideration of all the records viz. Charge- sheet, IO‟s report, disagreement note of Disciplinary Authority, representation of the applicant and the comments of the Disciplinary Authority thereon and other records pertaining to the disciplinary case of the applicant made available by the Respondent nos.1 and 2 as per Rule 15(3) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Commission had advised penalty commensurate with the proven misconduct against the applicant. The advice of the Commission has to be seen in totality, which is self-contained, self-explanatory and well-reasoned. The DA has taken its own independent decision by taking into consideration the advice so tendered by UPSC, alongwith all other relevant facts.
6.3 It has further been submitted that the Disciplinary Authority stated that in his reply to the charge memorandum, the applicant did not dispute that he had opened the tender. At the relevant time, the applicant, then functioning as Executive Engineer (Electrical), was the Tender Inviting Authority, the Tender Opening Authority, as well as the Tender Accepting Authority, and the tender was in fact accepted by him in exercise of his delegated financial powers. The applicant neither claimed to have authorized any other official to open the tender nor produced any evidence to suggest that the tender had been opened by anyone else. While it was open to the applicant to authorize the Assistant Engineer (Planning) of the Division to open the tender, no such authorization was ever issued. Moreover, the ID and password for the e-tender portal had been issued exclusively in the name of the applicant and could only have been used by him to access and open the 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 22 OA No.2561/2025 tender(s). Hence, it stood clearly established that the tender had been opened by the applicant himself.
6.4 It has also been urged that all the evidence relied upon in the inquiry were official records duly collected by the Vigilance Unit through proper correspondence. The tender documents, being computer-generated and downloaded from the e-tender portal, were duly authenticated by the concerned office, thereby establishing their genuineness and reliability. The Inquiry Officer did not hold any of the evidence as disproved, and the applicant never challenged their authenticity during the course of inquiry proceedings. His belated objections, therefore, appear to be afterthoughts and cannot be entertained at this stage.
6.5 The Disciplinary Authority‟s findings were thus reasonable, logical, and based on duly authenticated records. The Commission, after an independent and judicious consideration of all the relevant material, including the charge-sheet, the Inquiry Officer‟s report, the Disciplinary Authority‟s disagreement note, the representation of the applicant and the comments thereon, as well as other records made available by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, tendered its advice in terms of Rule 15(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Hence, the Commission has no role in granting any relief to the applicant in this case.
7. REJOINDER TO REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.3 7.1 In response to the reply filed by Respondent No.3, the applicant has contended that although the UPSC acknowledges its obligation to independently consider all material on record, it failed to take into account two fundamental defences raised by him, thereby rendering its advice as having been issued without proper application of mind. The applicant has further urged that the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged lapses. Even assuming, without admitting, that there were procedural irregularities, the same were purely technical in nature, did not entail any financial loss to the Government, nor confer any undue advantage upon any party. It is pointed out that the works were executed successfully, and all bidders 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 23 OA No.2561/2025 were otherwise eligible under the prescribed norms. In the absence of any allegation of corruption, mala fide intention, or financial impropriety, the imposition of a major penalty of reduction to a lower post till 30.07.2026, coupled with denial of promotions and increments, is argued to be unduly harsh and excessive. It is further submitted that the UPSC, in its advice as well as in its pleadings, has not disclosed the rationale or reasoning behind the quantum of punishment recommended. The absence of such justification, according to the applicant, reflects non-application of mind and renders the advice mechanical and perfunctory. While denying the contents of the reply filed by Respondent No.3, the applicant has further submitted that the Inquiry Officer has also relied on numerous provisions of the Works Manual as well as Standard Operating Procedure to substantiate the point. On the other hand, the UPSC in its advice to the Disciplinary Authority was conspicuously silent on the same and, therefore, the submissions made in the counter filed by respondent No.3 merit no response, which substantiates that the contention of the applicant that the advice of the UPSC was without any application of mind.
7.2 The applicant has further contended that the Inquiry Officer had categorically held the charges as „not proved‟ on two fundamental grounds: (i) the absence of evidence to establish that the applicant had opened the tenders; and (ii) the failure to prove the authenticity of the documents relied upon during the disciplinary proceedings. Although the Disciplinary Authority adverted to these findings, albeit in an erroneous manner, Respondent No.3 (UPSC), while rendering its advice, completely ignored these crucial aspects as well as the reasoning of the Inquiry Officer. According to the applicant, this omission clearly reflects non-application of mind on the part of the Commission, thereby vitiating its advice, which in turn forms the very basis issuance of the punishment order. It has also been urged that the Commission failed to independently consider the applicant‟s representation dated 05.07.2022 submitted against the disagreement note. The applicant has further placed reliance on the Office 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 24 OA No.2561/2025 Memorandum of the DoP&T dated 10.05.2010, which emphasizes that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature and that the Commission, while tendering its advice, is required to undertake a thorough, judicious, and independent consideration of all relevant facts, keeping in view the specific circumstances of each case. The applicant contended that in the present matter, the Commission failed to discharge this obligation, and its advice, having been rendered without due application of mind, is arbitrary and unsustainable.
7.3 The applicant has disputed the authenticity of the documents. So far as Part B of Article-1, i.e. the applicant has wrongly accepted the tender with an EMD of INR 16,000/- as against the EMD requirement of INR 24,847/- is concerned, the applicant placed reliance on the copies of uploaded FDRs certified by the successor of the applicant in relation to the same Article show that the total EMD submitted was to the tune of INR 31,000/-, which was more than the requirement. The said document was produced before the Inquiry Officer pursuant to the direction of the Inquiry Officer as a defense document. The same is also recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The discrepancy of submission date is merely on account of the fact that the terms of the NIT required submission of scanned and uploaded copy initially and submission of physical EMD within a week. As per Clause 9 NITs. The allegation that the FDR has expired is whimsical inasmuch as the FDR cannot lapse and is on auto renewal. Further the allegation that the Tender was opened by the applicant was in detailed analysis by the Inquiry Officer with regard to the provisions of the CPWD Works Manual and NIT designating numerous individuals with the right to open the Tender. For each Article of Charge, all documents relied upon by the prosecution analysed to ascertain whether they prove that the applicant opened the Tender. Thereafter, for each Article of Charge, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the Tender was not opened by the applicant. The obligation to prove an allegation is on the Prosecution which it has miserably failed to discharge.
7.4 In support of the claim of the applicant that the Disciplinary Authority without application of mind under the influence of advice 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 25 OA No.2561/2025 tendered by the UPSC imposed the impugned punishment order, reliance has been placed on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA NO.63/2011, titled Kunwar Patah Singh vs. Union of India and another decided on 28.1.2015.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, written submissions and the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the parties.
ANALYSIS
9. Since this matter pertains to departmental proceedings, we deem it apt to observe that it is settled principle of law that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, normally the Court/Tribunal may not interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court/Tribunal, since the High Court/Tribunal does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review. The Tribunal cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities.
9.1 In this regard, it is profitable to mention that by referring catena of judgments on the point of scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunals, the Three Judges Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80] wherein it has been held as under:
"13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the court/tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [Union of 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 26 OA No.2561/2025 India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364] this Court held at SCR p. 728 (AIR p. 369, para 20) that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
(emphasis supplied) 9.2 In another case in the matter of Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that while re-appreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings as under:-
"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
9.3 In another judgment rendered by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612: (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 457, by referring the law laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and catena of other judgments, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under:-
"22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority............"
23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya [H.P. SEB v. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar v. Union of 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 27 OA No.2561/2025 India [Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 103] .
24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.
25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:
(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;
(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;
(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
(emphasis supplied)
26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.
27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings.
28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 28 OA No.2561/2025 is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."
(emphasis supplied) 9.4 Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. Umesh (2022) 6 SCC 563: (2022) 2 SCC (L&S) 321, emphasised about the scope of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in the matter of disciplinary/departmental inquiry and held that: -
"22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not re-appreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (vi) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct."
10. By keeping in mind the aforesaid dicta laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on the issue of judicial review by the Courts/Tribunal in the matters of disciplinary proceedings and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted hereinabove, the following issues are required to be adjudicated by this Tribunal:-
(i) Whether the impugned charge Memorandum dated 20.05.2020 issued by the Disciplinary Authority is without application of mind?
(ii) Whether the charges levelled against the applicant stand vitiated on account of absence of independent witnesses to substantiate the allegations during the course of inquiry;
(iii) Whether the documents could not be proved as there was no witness other than Investigation Officer?
(iv) Whether while issuing disagreement note, the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the specific documents that were held by the IO to be not proved?
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'
Item No.15/C-5 29 OA No.2561/2025
(v) Whether there was non-application of mind on the part of
respondent no.3, i.e., UPSC while tendering their statutory advice on the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the applicant?
(vi) Whether while passing the punishment order, the Disciplinary Authority did not take into consideration proportionality of punishment? and
(vii) Whether there was delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and concluding the same?
11. With regard to issue (i) as mentioned in para 10 above, we deem it apt to produce the articles of charge levelled levelled against the applicant vide charge Memorandum dated 20.05.2020 (Annexure A-5), which reads as under:-
"ARTICLE-I NIT No.70/EE(E)/ECD-11/2014-15 Name of Work:- Construction of 1 No. Master Control Room, 6 Nos. Local Control Rooms, 2 Si lent Type DO Sets of 250 KYA, 20 Nos. of Split ACs and Electrical fittings under surveillance and Access Control Management System in Sena Bhawan (SH: Providing El & fans) EMD Amount:- Rs.24,847/-
Shri Mahavir Pandit, EE (E) had rejected the tender of M/s. Naini Electrical Works with the reason that EMO submitted with the tender was not in order. However, the EMO submitted with the tender for Rs.55,000/- was valid and the tender was rejected wrongly. Government could have incurred loss on exchequer due to non-opening of valid bids, if they had been the lowest. The EMO of M/s. Satnam Electric Works was as per EMO view i.e.Rs.24,847/- whereas the EMO attached is Rs. 16,000/-. Thus the tender should have been rejected as the EMO shown in the EMO view and the EMO uploaded were different. Thus, EE (E) has awarded invalid tender of M/s. Satnam Electric Works. The manipulation has been done by Shri Mahavir Pandit, EE (E) wh ile opening the bid and award of the work on invalid tender.
Shri Mahavir Pandit, Executive Engineer (E) while opening the tender for the NIT no.70/EE(E)/ECD-11/20 14- 15 of the above work had rejected the valid tender and opened the invalid tender on the basis of EMO uploaded by the bidders. He thus violated the provisions at Para 9 (i) of CPWD-6 FOR e-BIDING of NIT, Para 9, IO of Annexure 20A. 12 of CPWD Works Manual 2014 and Para 20A.8(1) of CPWD Works Manual 2014.
ARTICLE II NIT No.72/EE(E)/ECD-11/2014-15 Name of Work:- Renovation of Room No. 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 2, 3, 4 and 4A, O/o VIIth Army Pay Commission Cell, Ground Floor in „A‟ Wing, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi (SH: Providing EI & Fans) 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 30 OA No.2561/2025 EMD Amount: Rs.12,633/-
Shri Mahavir Pandit, EE (E) had rejected the tender of M/s. V.K. Electrical Works with the reason that eligibility documents were not uploaded properly. However, the documents uploaded by M/. V.K. Electrical Works fulfil the eligibility criteria as per NIT and the tender was rejected wrongly. Government could have incurred loss on exchequer due to non-opening of valid bid, if it had been the lowest. The tender of M/s. Satnam Electric Works should have been rejected as the EMD differs in EMD view and EMD uploaded. Thus, EE (E) has awarded invalid tender of M/s. Satnam Electric Works. The manipulation has been done by Shri Mahavir Pandit, EE (E) while opening the bid and award of work.
Shri Mahavir Pandit, Executive Engineer (E) while opening the tender for the NIT no.72/EE(E)/ECD-II/2014-15 of the above work had rejected the valid tender and opened the invalid tender on the basis of eligibility documents and EMD uploaded by the bidders. He thus violated the provisions at Para 9 (i) of CPWD-6 FOR e-BIDING of NIT, Para 9, 10 of Annexure 20A.12 of CPWO Works Manual 2014 and Para 20A.8(1) of CPWD Works Manual 2014.
ARTICLE-III NIT No.95/EE(E)/ECD-11/2014-15 Name of Work:- MoEI & fans at A. B. C. D-I and D-II Wing at Sena Bhawan, New Delhi (SH: Repair / replacement of Accessories and Providing Light Point in DB Rooms at D-I and D-II Wing) EMD Amount: Rs.9,795/ EMD submitted by M/s. V.K. Electrical Works for the tender of above work as per EMD view was FDR No.3182671 of Rs.10,000/- whereas the EMD uploaded was FDR No.318044 of Rs.5,000/- dated 2/01/2015 issued by Canara Bank. Thus, the tender of M/s. V.K. Electrical Works should have been rejected as the EMD shown in EMD view and the EMD uploaded were different as well as EMD uploaded was also less than the required EMD. Thus, EE (E) had opened, considered and awarded the bid of M/s. V.K. Electrical Works wrongly. The manipulation has been done by Shri Mahavir Pandit, EE (E) while opening the bid and award of the work on invalid tender.
Shri Mahavir Pandit, Executive Engineer (E) while opening the tender for the NIT no.95/EE(E)/ECD-II/2014-15 of the above work had opened the invalid tender on the basis of EMD uploaded by the bidder. He thus violated the provisions at Para 9 (i) of CPWD-6 FOR e-BIDING of NIT, Para 9, 10 of Annexure 20A.12 of CPWO Works Manual 2014 and Para 20A.8(1) of CPWO Works Manual 2014.
ARTICLE-IV NIT No.97/EE(E)/ECD-11/2014-15 Name of Work:- MoEI & fans at A. B. C. D-I and D-II Wing at Sena Bhawan, New Delhi (SH: Repair/replacement of Accessories and Providing Light Point, Computer Point and Power Points on 1st Floor at 'A' Wing) EMD Amount :Rs.9,773/-
The bid of M/s Chirag Enterprises was rejected with the recorded reason that "EMD Amount is below". The uploaded copy of the EMD revealed that the firm had uploaded EMD in the shape of a Demand Draft Bearing No. 774276 dated 05.02.2015 for amounting to Rs.9,900/- issued by Syndicate Bank. M/s Chirag Enterprises had scanned and uploaded a valid EMD instrument of adequate amount. The rejection of bid for inadequate EMD is incorrect. The Government could have incurred loss on exchequer due to non-opening of valid bid, if it had been the lowest.
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'
Item No.15/C-5 31 OA No.2561/2025
The manipulation has been done by Shri Mahavir Pandit, EE (E) while opening the bid and award of work.
Shri Mahavir Pandit, Executive Engineer (E) while opening the tender for the NIT No.97/EE(E)/ECD-11/20 14-1 5 of the above work had rejected the valid tender on the basis of EMD uploaded by the bidder. He thus violated the provisions at Para 9 (i) of CPWD-6 FOR e-BIDING of NIT, Para 9, 10 of Annexure 20A.12 of CPWD Works Manual 2014 and Para 20A.8(1) of CPWD Works Manual 20 14.
ARTICLE-V NIT No.100/EE(E)/ECD-11/2014-15 Name of Work:- MoEI & fans at A. B. C. D-I and D-II Wing at Sena Bhawan, New Delhi (SH: Repair/replacement of Accessories and Providing Light Point, Computer Point and Power Points on 2nd Floor at 'B' Wing) EMD Amount: Rs.9,817/ The bid of M/s Chirag Enterprises was rejected with the recorded reason that "EMD Amount is below hence rejected". The uploaded copy of the EMD revealed that the firm had scanned uploaded EMD in the shape of a Demand Draft Bearing No.288293 for Rs. 10,000/- only dated 05.12.2014 of Syndicate Bank. EMD required was Rs.9,817/-. Hence, M/s Chirag Enterprises had scanned and uploaded a valid EMD instrument of adequate amount. The rejection of bid of M/s. Chirag Enterprises for inadequate amount of EMD was incorrect, Government could have incurred loss on exchequer due to non-opening of valid bids, if it had been the lowest. The manipulation has been done by Shri Mahavir Pandit, EE (E) while opening the bid and award of work.
Shri Mahavir Pandit, Executive Engineer (E) while opening the tender for the NIT no. 100/EE(E)/ECD-II/2014-1 5 of the above work had rejected the valid tender on the basis of EMD uploaded by the bidder. He thus violated the provisions at Para 9 (i) of CPWD-6 FOR e-BIDING of NIT, Para 9, 10 of Annexure 20A.12 of CPWD Works Manual 2014 and Para 20A.8(1) of CPWD Works Manual 2014.
Thus by his above acts of omissions and commissions the said Shri Mahavir Pandit, Executive Engineer (E) did not maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duty, acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby contravened Rules 3 (1)
(i), 3 (1) (ii) and 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964."
11.1 We find that the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were not initiated in a casual or mechanical manner but were the outcome of a serious vigilance process triggered by a specific complaint dated 28.07.2015 alleging corruption in execution of electrical works at Sena Bhawan. The complaint, simultaneously received through multiple vigilance channels including the CVC and CBI, was verified by the complainant himself on 17.08.2015. The Vigilance Unit of CPWD sought an independent report from the Chief Engineer concerned, who, vide report dated 04.11.2015, found substance in the allegations warranting further probe. Subsequent detailed investigations by the Vigilance Unit revealed lapses 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 32 OA No.2561/2025 attributable to the applicant during his tenure as Executive Engineer (E) in Electrical Construction Division-II. On this basis, an initial investigation report dated 21.06.2018 and a final report dated 17.10.2018 were prepared. The applicant was duly confronted with the allegations through Memorandum dated 31.10.2018 and given full opportunity to submit his defence, which he did on 24.12.2018. The matter was thereafter referred to the CVC, which, vide its advice dated 10.01.2020, recommended initiation of major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the applicant. It was only thereafter, with the approval of the competent Disciplinary Authority, that the charge Memorandum dated 20.05.2020 was issued to the applicant, accompanied by statement of imputations, list of documents, list of witnesses, and a copy of the CVC‟s advice. Thus, Thus, the issuance of the charge Memorandum was based on due application of mind, preceded by verification, investigation, consideration of reports, and statutory consultation with the CVC.
12. With regard to issues (ii), (iii) and (iv) as mentioned in para 10 above, we observe that in departmental proceedings, the Evidence Act does not apply in strict sense. What is required is that there should be some evidence to reasonably support the charges. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 491), held as under:-
"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The „residuum‟ rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 33 OA No.2561/2025 American Jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence -- not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the Flying Squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground."
12.1 It is a settled proposition of law that while the presence of independent witnesses is not mandatory in disciplinary proceedings, the findings cannot rest merely on suspicion, conjectures, or unverified documents. Where reliance is placed on documentary evidence such as e-tender logs, portal records, official correspondence, or authenticated downloads, the absence of independent witnesses does not per se vitiate the proceedings, provided such documents are relevant, reliable, and duly proved in accordance with procedure. Conversely, if the prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of vigilance or departmental officers, the applicant may legitimately contend lack of independent corroboration; however, where an opportunity of cross-examination is afforded and the applicant fails to discredit such witnesses, the proceedings are ordinarily upheld by judicial forums. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi (supra) by the learned counsel and contended that mere production or tendering of documents is not sufficient and that the contents of such documents must be proved by examining a competent witness. However, the said judgment is distinguishable on facts and is of no assistance to the case of the applicant, as in Roop Singh Negi (supra), the finding of guilt was recorded solely on the basis of documents which were neither proved nor supported by any oral evidence. But, in the present case, the inquiry has not been conducted merely on the basis of production of documents in isolation; rather, the same were duly taken into account along with other evidence adduced during the inquiry. Moreover, the principles laid down in State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 34 OA No.2561/2025 Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had clarified that strict rules of evidence as applicable in criminal trials do not govern departmental inquiries, and reliance can be placed on all material which has probative value. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on Roop Singh Negi (supra) is misplaced and does not advance his case.
12.2 At this stage, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the contents of the disagreement note dated 6.6.2022, which read as under:-
"A copy of the Inquiry Report dated 15.06.2021 submitted by Sh. Komalakanta Pradhan, SE (Civil), CPWD who had been appointed as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against Sh. Mahavir Pandit, Electrical Engineer (E), CPWD, vide memorandum No.10/V-8/(A-199)/2015-VS.I/AV-III dated 20.05.2020, is forwarded herewith.
2. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are tentatively disagreed to the following extent in respect of Articles mentioned as under: -
Article-I The charge under Article-I is that the CO rejected valid tender of M/s Naini Electrical Works and opened the invalid tender of M/s Satman Electric Works on the basis of EMD uploaded by the bidder while opening of tender for NIT No. 70/EE(E)/ECD-II/2014-15 and manipulated in opening of bid and award of work.
The IA has dealt the charges under Article I in two parts as below: -
Part(A): - EMD of M/s Naini Electric Works valid but rejected.
The IA has held that prosecution document i.e. Tender notification, Bid detail, EMD View, Reason sheet (For rejection), EMD submitted by M/s Satnam Electric Works are not signed by CO. Thus it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO. The IA held that the CO has categorically denied that he has opened the tender and prosecution could not substantiate by bringing any material that tender was opened by the CO in reference to analysis given in Para 6.1.3 of IA report. It cannot be established that who has downloaded the FDR No. 310972 amounting to Rs. 55,000/- as an EMD.
The prosecution documents like bid details, EMD view, reason sheet (for rejection), are computer generated and downloaded documents from the e-tender portal. These documents remain in e-tender data base for any future reference. All the prosecution documents downloaded from the portal have been duly authenticated by the concerned office who downloaded from the e-portal (Prosecution documents- PE-3, PE-4, PE-5). The contention of the IA that these documents are unproven documents and not signed by the CO is thus incorrect. Hence the contentions of IA are not agreed.
CO in his brief to the IA (Refer IO's report Page-36) has deposed that M/s Naini Electrical has submitted FDRs of Rs. 55,000/- at the time of tendering was not in the favour of Executive Engineer(E), ECD-11, New Delhi and that the tender ofM/s Naini Electrical was correctly rejected.
It is observed that the EMD in the shape of FDR No. 310972 of Rs. 55,000/- (prosecution document PE-6) uploaded at the time of tendering by M/s Naini Electrical was in their own name and not pledged 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 35 OA No.2561/2025 in the favour of Executive Engineer(E), ECD-11, New Delhi. Thus, EMD submitted by M/s Naini Electricals was not as per NIT conditions.
In view of the fact that the FDR No. 310972 of Rs. 55,000/-, upload by agency as EMD was neither in favour of nor pledged in the favour of Executive Engineer(E), ECD-11, New Delhi, it does not comply the NIT condition. Hence, the rejection of EMD uploaded by M/s Naini Electrical was in order.
Hence, the charge under Part-A of Article-I is "tentatively not proved".
Part(B): - EMD of M/s Satnam Electric Works was not in order and should have been rejected.
The IA has held that prosecution document i.e. Tender notification, Bid detail, EMD View, Reason sheet (For rejection), EMD submitted by M/s Satnam Electric Works are not signed by the CO. Thus, it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO. The IA held that the CO has categorically denied that he has opened the tender and prosecution could not substantiate by bringing any material that tender was opened by the CO in reference to analysis given in Para 6.1.3 of IA report. It cannot be established that who has downloaded the FDR No. 271618 amounting to Rs. 16,000/- as an EMD and it is the only scanned copy of FDR uploaded by M/s Satnam Electric Works against EMD. From the physical FDR deposited in the department in the latter stage it was found that the agency had deposited the required EMD. Prosecution depends on documents which are not proven. The IA has therefore held this part of the charges as "Not Proved".
These findings of IA are not agreed due to following reasons: -
i. The prosecution documents like bid details, EMD view, reason sheet (for rejection), are computer generated and downloaded documents from the etender portal. These documents remain in e-tender data base for any future reference. All the prosecution documents downloaded from the portal have been duly authenticated by the concerned office who downloaded from the eportal (Prosecution documents- PE-3, PE-4, PE-5). The contention of the IA that these documents are unproven documents and not signed by the CO is incorrect. Hence the findings of IA are not agreed.
ii. As per Para 20A.8(1) of CPWD Works Manual 2014 bid shall be opened by EE/AE as per the provisions of the NIT (Prosecution document- PE-1). As per NIT, bids were to be opened by EE (Prosecution doc-PE-1). Moreover, in case this action is delegated by EE to AE, the same is to be done by the EE in terms of Para 20A.8(3) of CPWD Works Manual 2014, by authorizing AE through eportal. CO has not given any evidence during the course of inquiry that he has delegated this work to either of the AE. Thus, finding of the IA that it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO, which is largely based on the contention of the CO, is not correct and hence not agreed.
iii. Tender was accepted by the CO. Thus, being tender accepting authority, it was responsibility of the CO to ensure that all the bids received against this tender have been properly evaluated including for EMD. It is the duty of accepting authority to ensure while accepting any tender that no bidder is denied of his legitimate right. Thus, plea taken by the CO in his defense that he has not opened the tender is not relevant to the charge levelled against him that he did manipulation in opening of tender and award of work.
iv. Against this tender, the invalid bid of M/s Satnam Electric Work was opened and awarded wrongly. In EMD View the FDR No. 271618 was of Rs. 24,847/- but actually the uploaded FDR No.271618 was of Rs. 16,oo0/, which was of lesser amount than the required as per NIT. The FDR amounting to Rs.15,000/- (Defence Documents) was 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 36 OA No.2561/2025 submitted by Agency on 28.12.2014 (After the opening of e-tender i.e. 22.12.2014). This EMD was not uploaded with the tender as it is not reflected in the EMD view for subject tender. As per para 9 of the CPWD-6 for e-tendering "online bid documents by intending bidders shall be opened only of those bidders, who has deposited e-tender processing fee with M/s ITL Ltd.. as mentioned above and Earnest Money Deposit and other document scanned and uploaded are found in order"'. The EMD was of lesser amount than required in NIT, therefore, the bid should have neither been authorised on EMD view stage nor accepted by the CO for award of work. Thus, the opening and award of invalid tender of M/s Satnam Electric Works is a clear manipulation. Hence, findings of IA are not agreed.
v. CO in his brief to the IA (Refer. IO's report Page-35) has deposed that M/s Satnam Electric Works has submitted two FDRs of Rs.16,000/- & 15,000/- in the favour of Executive Engineer(E), ECD-II, New Delhi and that the tender of M/s Satnam Electric Works was correctly awarded. Once CO has himself defended wrongful acceptance of an invalid tender during course of inquiry, his plea that he did not open the tender is baseless and proves charge of manipulation by him in opening of tender and award of work. Thus, IA's finding on this Article that charge is "not proved" on the pretext that CO has not opened the tender is not agreed.
Thus, it is tentatively proved that Sh. Mahavir Pandit, EE(E) (CO) has manipulated in opening of bid and award of work to M/s Satnam Electric Works. Thus, the charge under Article-I Part B is held as tentatively proved.
Hence, the overall charge under Article-I is held as "tentatively partly proved".
Article-II The charge under Article-II is that the CO rejected valid tender of M/s V. K. Electrical Works on the basis of eligibility documents were not uploaded properly by the bidder and opened the invalid tender of M/s Satnam Electric Works as EMD differs in EMD view EMD uploaded in NIT No. 72/EE(E)/ECD-II/2014-15. Thus, the CO while opening of tender has manipulated in opening of bid and award of work.
The IA has dealt the charges under Article II in two parts as below: -
Part(A): - Bid of M/s V.K. Electrical Works was valid but it was rejected.
The IA has held that prosecution document i.e. Tender notification, Bid detail, EMD View, Reason sheet (For rejection), Eligibility documents, EMD submitted by the agencies are not signed by the CO. Thus, it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO. The IA held that the CO has categorically denied that he has opened the tender and prosecution could not substantiate by bringing any material that tender was opened by CO in reference to analysis given in (6.1.3) of IA report. It cannot be established that who has downloaded the bid document of M/s V. K. Electrical Works. Prosecution depends on documents which are not proven. The IA has therefore held this part of the charges as "Not Proved".
These findings of IA are not agreed due to the following reasons: -
i. The prosecution documents like bid details, EMD view, reason sheet (for rejection), Eligibility documents are computer generated and downloaded documents from the e-tender portal. These documents remain in e-tender data base for any future reference. All the prosecution documents downloaded from the portal have been duly authenticated by the concerned office who downloaded from thee-
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'
Item No.15/C-5 37 OA No.2561/2025
portal (Prosecution documents- PE-11, PE-12, PE-13). The contention of the IA that these documents are unproven documents and not signed by the CO is incorrect. Hence, the findings of IA are not agreed.
ii. As per Para 20A.8(1) of CPWD Works Manual 2014 bid shall be opened by EE/AE as per the provisions of the NIT (Prosecution document- PE-9). As per NIT, bids were to be opened by EE (Prosecution doc- PE-9). Moreover, in case this action is delegated by EE to AE, the same is to be done by the EE in terms of Para 20A.8(3) of CPWD Works Manual 2014, by authorizing AE through eportal. CO has not given any evidence during the course of inquiry that he has delegated this work to either of the AE. Thus, finding of the IA that it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO, which is largely based on the contention of the CO, is not correct and hence not agreed.
iii. Tender was accepted by the CO. Thus, being tender accepting authority, it was responsibility of the CO to ensure that all the bids received against this tender have been properly evaluated including for EMD. It is the duty of accepting authority to ensure while accepting any tender that no bidder is denied of his legitimate right. Thus, plea taken by the CO in his defense that he has not opened the tender is not relevant to the charge levelled against him that he did manipulation in opening of tender and award of work.
iv. Against this tender, the bid of M/s V. K. Electrical Works was rejected wrongly with the reasons cited on e-tender application that "eligibility documents were not uploaded in index properly and not in order hence cancelled". Whereas, it is clearly evident from the Prosecution Document PE-14 that M/s V. K. Electrical Works has uploaded all the requisite documents i.e. undertaking Enlistment Order, Electrical license, VAT Registration Certificate, Return Verification Form, PAN Card, EMD etc. which were found to be in order as per NIT. Thus, it proves that eligibility documents uploaded were as per eligibility criteria of NIT and reason recorded while rejecting that "eligibility documents were not uploaded in index properly and not in order hence cancelled" is a clear manipulation. Hence, findings of IA are not agreed.
v. As per provision of CPWD Works Manual 2014 para 20A.8 the bid is to be withdrawn in e-portal only. The request letter 29.12.2014 (D-2) by M/s V. K. Electrical Works has no dairy No. in EE(E) office, hence appears to be an afterthought. The tendering opening authority has no authority to not open an online bid which has been submitted in complete shape merely on the basis of written communication.
vi. CO in his brief to the IA (Refer I O's report Page-42) has deposed that M/s V. K. Electrical Works has withdrawn his bid vide letter dated 29.12.2014 (D-2/ P-1) and the tender of M/s V. K. Electrical Works was correctly rejected by an officer who opened online tenders. Once CO has himself defended wrongful rejection of a valid tender during course of inquiry, his plea that he did not open the tender is baseless and proves charge of manipulation by him in opening of tender and award of work. Thus, IA's finding on this Article that charge is "not proved" on the pretext that CO has not opened the tender is not agreed.
Thus, it is tentatively proved that Sh. Mahavir Pandit, EE(E) (CO) has manipulated in opening of bid and award of work by rejecting the valid tender of M/s V.K. Electrical Works. Thus, the charge under Article-II part (A) is held as tentatively proved.
Part(B): - EMD of M/s Satnam Electrical Work was not in order and should has been rejected.
The IA has held that prosecution document i.e. Tender notification, Bid detail, EMD View, Reason sheet (For rejection), EMD submitted by 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 38 OA No.2561/2025 M/s Satnam Electrical Work are not signed by CO. Thus it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO. The IA held that the CO has categorically denied that he has opened the tender and prosecution could not substantiate by bringing any material that tender was opened by CO in reference to analysis given in Para 6.1.3 of IA report.
These findings of IA are not agreed due to following reasons: -
i. The prosecution documents like bid details, EMD view, reason sheet (for rejection) are computer generated and downloaded documents from the etender portal. These documents remain in e-tender data base for any future reference. All the prosecution documents downloaded from the portal have been duly authenticated by the concerned office who downloaded from the eportal (Prosecution documents- PE-11, PE-12, PE-13). The contention of the IA that these documents are unproven documents and not signed by the CO is incorrect. Hence the findings of IA are not agreed.
ii. As per Para 20A.8(1) of CPWD Works Manual 2014 bid shall be opened by EE/ AE as per the provisions of the NIT (Prosecution document- PE-9). As per NIT, bids were to be opened by EE (Prosecution doc- PE-9). Moreover, in case this action is delegated by EE to AE, the same is to be done by the EE in terms of Para 20A.8(3) of CPWD Works Manual, 2014, by authorizing AE through eportal. CO has not given any evidence during the course of inquiry that he has delegated this work to either of the AE. Thus, finding of the IA that it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO, which is largely based on the contention of the CO, is not correct and hence not agreed.
iii. Tender was accepted by the CO. Thus, being tender accepting authority, it was responsibility of the CO to ensure that all the bids received against this tender have been properly evaluated including for EMD. It is the duty of accepting authority to ensure while accepting any tender that no bidder is denied of his legitimate right. Thus, plea taken by the CO in his defense that he has not opened the tender is not relevant to the charge levelled against him that he did manipulation in opening of tender and award of work.
iv. Against this tender, the bid of M/s Satnam Electrical Work was awarded wrongly as the FDR detail mentioned by bidder in EMD view (FDR No. 645953 of Rs.12,633/-) and FDR actually uploaded (No.271618 of Rs. 16,000/- dated 19.08.2014) by him were different. Moreover, the FDR No. 271618 of Rs. 16,000/- dated 19.08.2014 was submitted physically by the agency in NIT No. 70/EE(E)/ECD- II/2014-15 on 28.12.2014 (D-3 ½) and same was returned on 05.01.2015 after submission of PG. The same FDR in physical form was submitted in NIT No. 72/EE(E)/ECD-II/2014-15 & both the works were awarded to M/s Satnam Electric Works on 05.01.2015 (PE-16 and PE-08). From the above, it is proved that M/s Satnam Electric Works was not in possession of physical EMD i.e. the FDR No. 271618 of Rs. 16,000/- dated 19.08.2014 on the date of submission of bid i.e. 29.12.2014 in case of NIT No. 72/EE(E)/ECD-
II/2014-15 as it was already submitted with the EE(E), ECD-11 in respect of NIT No. 70/EE(E)/ECD-II/2014-15. Thus, it proves that award of tender to M/s Satnam Electrical Work was made without EMD is a clear manipulation. Hence, findings of IA are not agreed.
(v) CO in his brief to the IA (Refer I O's report Page-41) has deposed that the EMD of M/s Satnam Electrical Work of Rs. 16,000/- and that the tender of M/s Satnam Electrical Work was correctly opened by an officer who opened online tenders as EMD shown in EMD view and EMD uploaded is different, is frivolous without any such condition in the NIT. Once CO has himself defended wrongful acceptance of an invalid EMD during the course of inquiry, his plea that he did not open the tender is baseless and proves charge of manipulation by him in opening of tender 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 39 OA No.2561/2025 and award of work. Thus, IA's finding on this Article that charge is "not proved" on the pretext that CO has not opened the tender is not agreed.
Thus it is tentatively proved that Sh. Mahavir Pandit, EE(E) (CO) has manipulated by opening and award of invalid tender of M/s Satnam Electrical Works on the basis of EMD uploaded. Thus, the charge under Article-II part (B) is held as tentatively proved.
Hence, overall the charge under Article-II is held as "tentatively proved".
Article-III The charge under Article-III is that the CO opened the invalid tender of M/s V. K. Electric Works on the basis of EMD uploaded by the bidder while opening of tender for NIT No. 95/EE(E)/ECD-II/2014-15 and manipulated in opening of bid and award of work.
The IA has held that prosecution document i.e. Tender notification, Bid detail, EMD View, Reason sheet (For rejection), EMD submitted by M/s V. K. Electric Works are not signed by CO. Thus, it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO. The IA held that the CO has categorically denied that he has opened the tender and prosecution could not substantiate by bringing any material that tender was opened by the CO in reference to analysis given in Para 6.1.3 of IA report.
The IA himself has agreed that scanned copy of EMD uploaded (PE-22) by M/s V. K. Electric Works was less than required amount. But held the charge against this Article as "not proved" on the pretext that this document is an unproven document and cannot be relied upon to prove the charge against the CO. These findings of IA are not agreed due to following reasons: -
i. The prosecution documents like bid details, EMD view, reason sheet (for rejection) are computer generated and downloaded documents from the etender portal. These documents remain in e-tender data base for any future reference. All the prosecution documents downloaded from the portal have been duly authenticated by the concerned office who downloaded from the eportal (Prosecution documents- PE-19, PE-20, PE-21). The contention of the IA that these documents are unproven documents and not signed by the CO is incorrect. Hence, the findings of IA are not agreed.
ii. As per Para 20A.8(1) of CPWD Works Manual 2014 bid shall be opened by EE/AE as per the provisions of the NIT (Prosecution document- PE-17). As per NIT, bids were to be opened by EE (Prosecution doc- PE-17). Moreover, in case this action is delegated by EE to AE, the same is to be done by the EE in terms of Para 20A.8(3) of CPWD Works Manual 2014, by authorizing AE through eportal. CO has not given any evidence during the course of inquiry that he has delegated this work to either of the AE. Thus, finding of the IA that it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO, which is largely based on the contention of the CO, is not correct and hence not agreed.
iii. Tender was accepted by the CO. Thus, being tender accepting authority, it was responsibility of the CO to ensure that all the bids received against this tender have been properly evaluated including for EMD. It is the duty of accepting authority to ensure while accepting any tender that no bidder is denied of his legitimate right. Thus, plea taken by the CO in his defense that he has not opened the tender is not relevant to the charge leveled against him that he did manipulation in opening of tender and award of work.
iv. Against this tender, the bid of M/s V. K. Electric Works was opened and awarded wrongly. As the EMD in the form of FDR No. 318044 dated 02.01.2015 for Rs. 5,000/- was of lesser amount than as 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 40 OA No.2561/2025 required in NIT (Prosecution docPE-22). As per para 9 of CPWD-6 fore-tendering "online bid documents by intending bidders shall be opened only of those bidders, who has deposited etender processing fee with M/ s ITL Ltd. as mentioned above and Earnest Money Deposit and other document scanned and uploaded are found in order". IA in his report has also concluded that the EMD uploaded by M/s V. K. Electric Works was of lesser amount than required as per NIT. Thus, it proves beyond doubt that EMD amount was of lesser amount than the required therefore, opening and award of work is a clear manipulation. Hence, findings of IA are not agreed.
(v) CO in his brief to the IA (Refer IO's report Page-47) has deposed that the EMD of M/s V. K. Electric Works in favour of the Executive Engineer(E), ECD-II, New Delhi that the tender of M/s Satnam Electrical Work was correctly opened by an officer who opened online tenders as EMD shown in EMD view and EMD uploaded is different, is frivolous without any such condition of the NIT. Once CO has himself submitted wrongful acceptance ofan invalid tender during course of inquiry, his plea that he did not open the tender is baseless and proves charge of manipulation by him in opening of tender and award of work. Thus, IA's finding on this Article that charge is "not proved" on the pretext that CO has not opened the tender is not agreed.
Thus, it is tentatively proved that Sh. Mahavir Pandit, EE(E) (CO) has manipulated in opening the invalid bid and awarded the work to M/s V. K. Electric Works.
Thus, the charge under Article-III is held as "tentatively proved".
Article-IV: -
The charge under Article-IV is that the CO rejected valid tender of M/s Chirag Enterprises on the basis of EMD uploaded by the bidder while opening of tender for NIT No. 97/EE(E)/ECD-II/2014-15 and manipulated in opening of bid and award of work.
The IA has held that prosecution document i.e. Tender notification, Bid detail, EMD View, Reason sheet (For rejection), EMD submitted by M/s Chirag Enterprises are not signed by the CO. Thus, it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO. The IA held that the CO has categorically denied that he has opened the tender and prosecution could not substantiate by bringing any material that tender was opened by the CO in reference to analysis given in Para 6.1.3 of IA report.
The IA himself has agreed that scanned copy of EMD uploaded by M/s Chirag Enterprises was valid (with minor discrepancy in writing the No.2 in place of "II"). But held the charge against this Article as "not proved" on the pretext that this document is an unproven document and cannot be relied upon to prove the charge against the CO. These findings of IA are not agreed due to the following reasons: -
i. The prosecution documents like bid details, EMD view, reason sheet (for rejection) are computer generated and downloaded documents from the etender portal. These documents remain in e-tender data base for any future reference. All the prosecution documents downloaded from the portal have been duly authenticated by the concerned office who downloaded from the eportal (Prosecution documents- PE-26, PE-27, PE-28). The contention of the IA that these documents are unproven documents and not signed by the CO is incorrect. Hence the findings of IA are not agreed.
ii. As per Para 20A.8(1) of CPWD Works Manual 2014 bid shall be opened by EE/AE as per the provisions of the NIT (Prosecution document- PE-24). As per NIT, bids were to be opened by EE (Prosecution doc- PE-24). Moreover, in case this action is delegated by EE to AE, the same is to be done by the EE in terms of Para 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 41 OA No.2561/2025 20A.8(3) of CPWD Works Manual 2014, by authorizing AE through eportal. CO has not given any evidence during the course of inquiry that he has delegated this work to either of the AE. Thus, finding of the IA that it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO, which is largely based on the contention of the CO, is not correct and hence not agreed.
iii. Tender was accepted by the CO. Thus, being tender accepting authority, it was responsibility of the CO to ensure that all the bids received against this tender have been properly evaluated including for EMD. It is the duty of accepting authority to ensure while accepting any tender that no bidder is denied of his legitimate right. Thus, plea taken by the CO in his defense that he has not opened the tender is not relevant to the charge levelled against him that he did manipulation in opening of tender and award of work.
iv. Against this tender, the bid of M/s Chirag Enterprises was rejected wrongly with the reasons recorded that "EMD amount is below hence rejected". Even though EMD in shape of DD No. 774276 dated 05.12.2014 amounting to Rs. 9,900/-was of adequate amount as per NIT (Prosecution doc- PE-29).IA in his report has also concluded that the EMD uploaded by M/s Chirag Enterprises was valid with the minor discrepancy in writing the No.2 in place of "II". Thus, it proves beyond doubt that EMD amount was of required amount and reason recorded while rejecting that EMD amount was below is a clear manipulation. Hence, findings of IA are not agreed.
v. CO in his brief to the IA (Refer IO's report Page-50) has deposed that the EMD of M/s Chirag Enterprises was not in favour of the Executive Engineer(E), ECD-II, New Delhi and that the tender of M/s Chirag Enterprises was correctly rejected by an officer who opened online tenders as the payee mentioned is different (2 in place of II) and not as prescribed in the NIT. Once CO has himself submitted wrongful rejection of a valid EMD during course of inquiry, his plea that he did not open the tender is baseless and proves charge of manipulation by him in opening of tender and award of work. Thus, IA's finding on this Article that charge is "not proved" on the pretext that CO has not opened the tender is not agreed.
Thus, it is tentatively proved that Sh. Mahavir Pandit, EE(E) (CO) has manipulated in opening of bid and award of work by rejecting the valid tender of M/s Chirag Enterprises.
Thus, the charge under Article-IV is held as "tentatively proved".
Article-V The charge under Article-Vis that the CO rejected valid tender of M/s Chirag Enterprises on the basis of EMD uploaded by the bidder while opening of tender for NIT No. 100/EE(E)/ECD-II/2014-15 and manipulated in opening of bid and award of work.
The IA has held that prosecution document i.e. Tender notification, Bid detail, EMD View, Reason sheet (For rejection), EMD submitted by M/s Chirag Enterprises are not signed by the CO. Thus, it is not getting substantiated that the tender has been opened by the CO. The IA held that the CO has categorically denied that he has opened the tender and prosecution could not substantiate by bringing any material that tender was opened by the CO in reference to analysis given in Para 6.1.3 of IA report.
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'
Item No.15/C-5 42 OA No.2561/2025
The IA himself has agreed that scanned copy of EMD uploaded by M/s Chirag Enterprises was valid (with minor discrepancy in writing the N0.2 in place of "II"). But held the charge against this Article as "not proved" on the pretext that this document is an unproven document and cannot be relied upon to prove the charge against the CO. These findings of IA are not agreed due to the following reasons: -
i. The prosecution documents like bid details, EMD view, reason sheet (for rejection) are computer generated and downloaded documents from the etender portal. These documents remain in e-tender data base for any future reference. All the prosecution documents downloaded from the portal have been duly authenticated by the concerned office who downloaded from the eportal (Prosecution documents- PE-33, PE-34, PE-35). The contention of the IA that these documents are unproven documents and not signed by the CO is incorrect. Hence, the findings of IA are not agreed.
ii. As per Para 20A.8(1) of CPWD Works Manual, 2014 bid shall be opened by EE/AE as per the provisions of the NIT (Prosecution document- PE-31). As per NIT, bids were to be opened by EE (Prosecution doc- PE-31). Moreover, in case this action is delegated by EE to AE, the same is to be done by the EE in terms of Para 20A.8(3) of CPWD Works Manual 2014, by authorizing AE through eportal. CO has not given any evidence during the course of inquiry that he has delegated this work to either of the AE. Thus, finding of the IA that it is not getting substantiated that the tender bas been opened by the CO, which is largely based on the contention of the CO, is not correct and hence not agreed.
iii. Tender was accepted by the CO. Thus, being tender accepting authority, it was responsibility of the CO to ensure that all the bids received against this tender have been properly evaluated including for EMD. It is the duty of accepting authority to ensure while accepting any tender that no bidder is denied of his legitimate right. Thus, plea taken by the CO in his defense that he has not opened the tender is not relevant to the charge leveled against him that he did manipulation in opening of tender and award of work.
iv. Against this tender, the bid of M/s Chirag Enterprises was rejected wrongly with the reasons recorded that "EMD amount is below hence rejected". Even though EMD in the form of DD No. 288293 dated 05.12.2014 amounting to Rs. 10,000/- was of adequate amount as per NIT (Prosecution doc- PE-36). IA in his report has also concluded that the EMD uploaded by M/s. Chirag Enterprises was valid with the minor discrepancy in writing the No.2 in place of "II". Thus, it proves beyond doubt that EMD amount was of required amount and reason recorded while rejecting that EMD amount was below is a clear manipulation. Hence, findings of IA are not agreed.
v. CO in his brief to the IA (Refer IO's report Page-55) has deposed that the EMD of M/s Chirag Enterprises was not in favour ofthe Executive Engineer(E), ECD-II, New Delhi and that the tender of M/s Chirag Enterprises was correctly rejected by an officer who opened online tenders as the payee mentioned is different (2 in place of II) and not as prescribed in the NIT. Once CO has himself submitted wrongful rejection of a valid EMD during the course of inquiry, his plea that he did not open the tender is baseless and proves charge of manipulation by him in opening of tender and award of work. Thus, IA's finding on this Article that charge is "not proved" on the pretext that CO has not opened the tender is not agreed.
Thus, it is tentatively proved that Sh. Mahavir Pandit, EE(E) (CO) has manipulated in opening of bid and award of work by rejecting the valid tender of M/s Chirag Enterprises.
2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 43 OA No.2561/2025 Thus, the charge under Article-V held as "tentatively proved".
3. In the light of analysis and assessment of evidence, charges under Articles II, III, IV and V are tentatively proved and charge under Article I is tentatively partly proved. The contents of statement in the last para of Annexure-I of Charge Memo that the CO has failed to maintain absolute integrity and he acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and exhibited lack of devotion to duty are sustained. Thus, the said Shri Mahavir Pandit Executive Engineer(E) by his above acts of omissions and commissions failed to maintain absolute integrity, exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby tentatively contravened Rules 3 (1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
4. The said Sh. Mahavir Pandit, Executive Engineer (E), CPWD is hereby informed that he may make such representation in the matter as he may wish to make. Such representation, if any, shall be submitted in writing within fifteen days of the receipt of this memorandum, failing which it will be presumed that he has no representation to make and further necessary action in the matter is liable to be taken accordingly."
12.3 Further, it is a settled proposition of law that strict rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to departmental proceedings. What is required is that the conclusion of guilt must rest on some material which is logically probative to a prudent mind. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh (supra) categorically held that absence of independent witnesses would not vitiate disciplinary proceedings, provided there is „some evidence‟ supporting the charges and the delinquent employee has been afforded an adequate opportunity to rebut the same. Similarly, in Union of India v. T.R. Varma, reported in AIR 1957 SC 882, the Hon‟ble Apex Court clarified that technical rules of admissibility of evidence do not apply, and even statements of departmental witnesses or documentary evidence can form the basis of findings if not demolished in cross- examination.
12.4 Upon a careful perusal of the aforesaid disagreement note, we find that while tentatively differing from the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of Part (B) of Article I and Articles II to V, the Disciplinary Authority has recorded detailed reasons in support of its conclusion. In our considered view, the absence of independent witnesses, by itself, does not vitiate the findings, particularly when the allegations stand corroborated by contemporaneous electronic records 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 44 OA No.2561/2025 and documentary evidence, which remained undisputed during the inquiry proceedings. Significantly, the applicant has not, either in his pleadings or before the authorities, specifically denied the factum of having opened the tender in question. Therefore, the contention that the proceedings suffer for want of independent witnesses cannot be sustained.
13. With respect to issue (v) mentioned in para 10 above, we have carefully examined the advice tendered by the UPSC on 16.08.2024. On perusal, we find that the advice cannot be said to be without application of mind insofar as the quantum of punishment is concerned. The UPSC has considered the nature and gravity of the lapses attributed to the applicant, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, as well as the tentative disagreement note of the Disciplinary Authority. The Commission has thereafter assessed the overall seriousness of the misconduct in the context of established principles governing proportionality of penalty and recommended an appropriate punishment. The fact that the advice does not deal with each and every contention of the applicant in detail would not, by itself, render it vitiated, since what is required in law is due consideration of the material on record and application of mind to the question of punishment, which requirement stands satisfied in the present case. Moreover, under the established jurisprudence, the power to determine proportionate penalty lies squarely with the disciplinary authority and, by extension, in this context, with the UPSC as the advisory body. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Parma Nanda v. State of Haryana, reported in (1989 2 SCC
177), neither the Tribunal nor any reviewing court may substitute its discretion for that of the competent authority, so long as the punishment is legally imposed on proved misconduct. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
"27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the inquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 45 OA No.2561/2025 an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the inquiry officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
13.1 In the present case, no material suggests that the UPSC‟s recommendation was mechanical or devoid of reasoning. On the contrary, it bears every indicia of thoughtful, principled determination. Therefore, we conclude that the advice tendered clearly evidenced due application of mind and is legally sustainable.
13.2 Furthermore, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has also observed in regard to scope of judicial review as well as in regard to the quantum of punishment in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Md. Ayub Naaz, reported in 2006 (1) SCC 589, as under:-
"10. This Court in Om Kumar and Others vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 while considering the quantum of punishment / proportionality has observed that in determining the quantum, role of administrative authority is primary and that of court is secondary, confined to see if discretion exercised by the administrative authority caused excessive infringement of rights. In the instant case, the authorities have not omitted any relevant materials nor any irrelevant fact taken into account nor any illegality committed by the authority nor the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate. The punishment was awarded in the instant case, after considering all the relevant materials and, therefore, in our view, the interference by the High Court on reduction of punishment of removal is not called for."
13.3 Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, it is evident that the Disciplinary Authority has neither ignored any relevant material nor been influenced by extraneous considerations, nor has any illegality been demonstrated in the process. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the charges established against the applicant, we are of the considered view that the punishment imposed cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant interference by this Tribunal.
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'
Item No.15/C-5 46 OA No.2561/2025
14. With regard to issue (vi) mentioned in para 10 above, we have carefully perused the punishment Order dated 10.6.2025 and find that the same is a reasoned one and the punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against the applicant.
15. With regard to issue (vii) mentioned in para 10 above, it is settled law that unexplained and inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings may vitiate the same, as held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board (supra), since such delay causes prejudice to the delinquent employee. However, in the present case, the respondents have explained the delay by contending that under CVC guidelines, a charge memorandum can be issued at any stage of service for lapses committed. The charge Memorandum dated 20.05.2020 was thus issued in accordance with those guidelines and the delay in conclusion of the proceedings was occasioned by circumstances beyond the respondents‟ control, namely, the indisposition of the sole prosecution witness (PW-1), who underwent surgery in both eyes and remained unfit for about three months, as well as the unprecedented restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which adversely affected office attendance and inquiry proceedings. In addition, the applicant himself contributed to the delay by seeking repeated extensions for filing representations, which were accommodated by the Disciplinary Authority in the interest of natural justice. As such we find that the delay stands sufficiently explained and cannot be treated as either unjustified or prejudicial to the applicant. Further, it is apt to mention that the applicant had participated in the said inquiry proceedings and had not chosen to challenge the said charge Memorandum at the time when the same was issued to him. It is only when the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the findings recorded by the IO in its report, the applicant had raised this ground, which is now not permissible in law. Further, it is pertinent to note that the applicant had duly participated in the inquiry proceedings and at no point of time had chosen to challenge the validity of the charge Memorandum 2025.09.03 RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05 +05'30' Item No.15/C-5 47 OA No.2561/2025 when it was issued to him. It is only after the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in its report that the applicant has raised this ground. Such a course of action is not permissible in law. Accordingly, the belated challenge raised by the applicant at this stage cannot be sustained. In view of the above, all the seven issues as framed and mentioned in para 10 above are answered in favour of the respondents.
16. To examine the true purport of imposition of penalty under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a reference has to be made to Rule 11(vi) of the said Rules. On the face of it, it appears that the penalty in the present case has been imposed on the basis of the aforesaid provision. A perusal of the aforesaid provision truly reflects that the punishment so imposed by the respondents is not in consonance with the aforesaid provision. In fact, we observe that the reduction to next lower pay of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) is till 30.07.2026. The further stipulation in the impugned order, i.e., "with a bar to further promotions" is a worrisome factor. A plain and simple reading of the provision as contemplated in Rule 11 (vi) does not envisage that the bar on promotion should continue indefinitely. In fact, what the provisions contemplate is that the bar ought to be restricted till a specified period, which in the present case is, 30.07.2026 and no further. If the interpretation which is given in the impugned order is continued to operate till the superannuation of the applicant, it will throttle the rights of the applicant permanently.
16.1 It is also noticeable that in the impugned order, it has been observed that "during the period of penalty, the applicant will not earn increments of pay". We also hold that such punishment should also operate till 30.07.2026.
16.2 Further, it is evident that the impugned order itself highlights that "such reduction to lower post will not have effect on pensionary benefits". On a fair interpretation of the same, it can be safely said that reduction to a lower post will not have effect on the pensionary benefits of the applicant.
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'
Item No.15/C-5 48 OA No.2561/2025
16.3 In view of the above, the punishment as contemplated including restricting the promotions/not earning increments shall be restricted only till 30.07.2026.
17. The present OA is disposed of in view of the above facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons.
18. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
2025.09.03
RAVI KANOJIA12:42:05
+05'30'