Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Dr Sachin Tharewal vs Science And Technology on 29 July, 2025
1
O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00310/2024
Order Reserved on: 09.07.2025
Date of Order: 29.07.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE B. K. SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
Dr. Sachin Tharewal,
(S/o late Shri Shrihari Tharewal)
Aged around 51 years,
Retired [FR 56 (j)] as Senior Scientist from CSIR-NAL,
Residing at: E901, T3, Adarsh Palm Retreat,
Bangalore - 560 103. ...Applicant
(Party in person)
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Through DG CSIR cum Secretary DSIR,
Anusandhan Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director General,
CSIR (officiating Appellate Authority),
Anusandhan Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
ajay mudgal
ajay CAT Bangalore
2025.07.30
mudgal16:25:12
+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Director (officiating Disciplinary Authority),
CSIR-NAL, Kodihalli,
Bengaluru - 560 017.
4. Mr. Jitendra J Jadhav,
Former Director, NAL (original Disciplinary Authority),
Currently Director, Aeronautical Development Agency,
Vimanapura, Bangalore - 560 017.
5. Dr. Jatinder Singh,
Former Head, FMCD; Currently Advisor (M&A),
CSIR-NAL, Kodihalli, Bangalore - 560 017. ...Respondents
(By advocate, Dr. Rama R. Iyer)
ORDER
PER: MR. SANTOSH MEHRA, MEMBER (A)
In this OA, the applicant has asked for the following reliefs:
Prayer: QUOTE: "Kindly call for entire case records from organization and with on merits judicial scrutiny, kindly quash impugned penalty order NAL/3(28)Vig-2018 dated 20/11/2020 issued by Director, CSIR-NAL and impugned appellate order 17- 01/NAL/2023/HR-III(Disc. Matters) dated 29/3/2023 issued by DG, CSIR [i.e., herein Annex A1 and A2 respectively].
Interlocutory prayer: The inquiry records will show how authorities caused prejudice to the defence of applicant. Hence, now Your Honor ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE may kindly come to his rescue by granting enabling reliefs as described under the facts/circumstances section, particularly:
provision of foolproof authenticated records to the applicant by the organization (thereby preventing reactionary destruction/fabrication/buildup of documents by authorities) and then due cross examination of material witnesses in Your Honor's presence.
Consequential prayer: In the contextual larger interest of the nation and towards complete justice in the interest of the whistleblower applicant, kindly pass any other orders/directions which Your Honor may deem fit and proper.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT SHALL AS INDUTY BOUND. EVER PRAY.
(i) PMOs' responses looks like it is inclined to act on my whistle blown matter. But the guilty/shielding authorities are trying to derail due action for obvious reasons. Authorities might give excuse of Affairs of State to prevent judicial scrutiny.
Such prevention of judicial scrutiny would be against the interest of the nation. Hence, the authorities may please be directed to seek approval of Hon'ble Prime Minister for each stand which they may lake for/against any claims under section 123/124 of the Indian Evidence Act. They may further be directed to facilitate hearing my side by Hon'ble Prime Minister while deciding the same. This would balance out guilty/shielding authorities' undue influence in said decision making process.
(ii) Further, Your Honour may kindly direct the registry lo list the matter for chamber hearings. Such safeguard maybe justified by the sensitivity of said matter and furthermore, ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE without such safeguards in place, authorities might give this as excuse to prevent judicial scrutiny of said matter." UNQUOTE.
1. Fact in a nutshell:
A. The applicant joined CSIR- NAL in October 2006, as a Senior Scientist and was posted in its FMCD division. During the course of the next eight years of his service, the applicant was made a team member of several sensitive projects of the Ministry of Defence. However, it was found that he was not making any tangible contribution to these projects. Furthermore, his conduct & general behaviour was seen to be non- cooperative, disruptive and indisciplined, in the different units where he served. In view of the same, he was issued a Charge Memo inclusive of four Articles of Charge on 11.03.2019. As his explanation was found unsatisfactory, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Based on the report of the Inquiry Authority, the Disciplinary Authority, on 20.11.2020, imposed a penalty of "Reduction to lower stage in the pay level by four cells for a period of three years with further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have effect of postponing the future increments of his pay." upon him. The penalty was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority also on 29.03.2023.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE B. The applicant, on the contrary, has repeatedly mentioned that he is being victimised by the respondents as he tried to expose corruption, collusion and inefficiency in the different departments. Due to his fight against corruption etc, the whole system ganged up against him and has taken retributive action against him to deter and discourage him from exposing their misdeeds. Since he did not get any relief from his superiors, he has now approached this Tribunal for relief through this OA.
2. According to the applicant, who is Party in Person, he is a whistleblower, due to which he suffered harassment, retributive action and eventually retaliatory disciplinary proceedings, culminating into compulsory retirement under FR 56(J).
3. The applicant says that the entire saga traverses 15 years, and even at higher levels, he suffered retribution. The higher authorities also tried to discredit him in the eyes of the PMO and Ministries from whom he got positive response and misled the Government, to protect themselves. According to him, disciplinary proceedings against him were carried out on grounds of dereliction of duty, disobedience, discipline, etc. so that the issues raised by him were obfuscated and to deter him from continuing his tirade against corruption and inefficiency. He says that the issues raised by him as a whistleblower were downplayed and neither any Inquiry nor judicial scrutiny was conducted upon them.
4. The applicant states that in view of the sensitivity of the matters, proper enquiry should be done, away from the public eye and in camera proceeding should be carried out. He states ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE that as the issues being raised by him are highly sensitive and confidential in nature, he is appearing as party in person and not submitting any documents. Challenging the disciplinary proceedings that were conducted against him, the applicant states that it was in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and was vitiated at every step. According to him, the disciplinary proceedings were in contravention of the Constitutional provisions, the CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965 & Principles of Natural Justice on the following counts:
a. The chargesheet that was issued to him was signed only on cover letter page number two and rest of the pages were unsigned and unauthenticated.
b. The enquiry authority refuse to take certain documents submitted by him on record.
c. The existing cross records indicate attempts at forgery, creation of fraudulent documents, suppression of records, fabrication etc. Therefore, all these records need to be frozen and kept in protective custody at:
(1) CSIR HQ, (2) NAL Directorate/Administration, (3) FMC Division.
d. He says that his request in this regard to the Appellate Authority was not responded to.
e. The applicant request that all the records mentioned above should be secured and scrutinised by this Bench which would include his letters, emails etc. sent to the PMO, Ministry & his Organisation.
5. The applicant points out that Principles of Natural Justice were violated as one of the charges against him was that he did not submit his work reports on weekly basis as per the instructions of the Director. The same Director, in the capacity of ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Disciplinary Authority, appointed the Inquiry Authority. Instead, some ad hoc Disciplinary Authority should have been appointed.
6. He further avers that his request to the Appellate Authority to quash the disciplinary proceedings on the grounds of violation of Principles of Natural Justice was denied stating that there was no provision in the CCS(CCA) Rules to quash the chargesheet once issued. He further stated that instead of out rightly quashing his request, the Appellate Authority could have sought clarification under Rule 23 (iv)(b) of CCS (CCA) Rules,
7. According to the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority was himself an interested party. He further status that all his requests were denied on the grounds that he had not delineated any specific instances against the Inquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority which were not correct. He further states that the Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was a non- speaking order which ignored the illegalities committed by the Inquiry Authority. He further states that though the Appellate Authority acknowledged that his written brief submitted under R 14 (19) were not taken on record by Inquiry Authority, but the same was not dealt by him appropriately.
8. The Applicant further states that since the chargesheet issued to him was a fraudulent one and the Disciplinary Authority was himself an interested party and since both of them i.e. Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, ignored his representations, he had correctly reserved his rights regarding inspection of documents, submission of additional documents, list of defence witnesses, and cross-examination etc. to be exercised at later dates.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
9. The applicant asserts that the findings of Designated Authority would shock the conscience of the Hon'ble Court as they were contrary to the evidence and documents on record.
10. He further states that the PMO seemed to be inclined to take action on his "Whistle-blown matter". But his superior authorities were misleading the Government and derailing follow-up action by the Government. He concludes by stating that the actions of his higher authorities were arbitrary and malafide and were in violation of Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 and also of Fundamental Duties as given in Article 51 A(h & j) of the Constitution of India.
11. He had reiterated his request for Chamber Hearing at the admission stage itself and for in-camera proceedings, after submission of all records by his Organization.
12. The Respondents have filed their reply. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Applicant joined CSJR- NAL, Bangalore as Senior Scientist on 12.10.2006 and was posted to FMCD Division of CSJR-NAL. He was assigned to carry out research work in the area of Performance evaluation of PIO techniques and handling qualities for High Performance Aircraft and UAVs. There was a plan to send the Applicant to UK, which was shelved as he did not show interest. The Applicant underwent the following two training courses:-
a. Two days training programme on "Six Degrees of Freedom Modelling and Simulation of Aerospace Vehicles" at C-DAC, Bangalore in 2007 and later on, b. Short term course on "Flight Vehicle System Identification in Time Domain" at IISc, Bangalore. c. As he was unwilling to assume responsibility which seriously effected the smooth functioning of the projects, ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE the Project Coordinator from NAL had to change his scope of work in 2009.
13. Over the next few years, it was continually observed that the performance of the applicant was not up to the mark and he was always complaining. Since he was not getting along well with his colleagues, he was sought to be rotated on a number of projects. The details are as follows:-
a. In 2008, on the SARAS Projects, based on his expertise in Control Systems.
b. As a team member for LCA project on "Flight Validation and Update of LCA Aerodynamic Database" during 2008-2011.
c. As a team member in the 11 FYP project on "Parameter Estimation of Flexible Aircraft" during 2009-2013, where he was later assigned as a Project Leader. d. As a team member in the project on "Flight Date Analysis and Parameter Estimation of Tejas Naval Variant" during 2011 and 2013.
14. According to the counsel for the respondents, in none of the above mentioned projects, the applicant showed any interest or active involvement. On the contrary, there were complaints of non-cooperation and disruption on his part, by other team members. Hence, the applicant was directed to take up independent projects in his area of specialisation. He was invited to the inter-divisional Mirage Project where also, he did not make any contribution. He repeatedly failed to submit his APARs. He was frequently bypassing designated official channels and submitting letters/representations and complaints to high ranking officials including to the PMO, the Defence Minister etc,. Taking cognizance of his representations, the ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Director of CSIR - NAL constituted a Committee on 10 September 2015, to address the various issues raised by him. The Applicant, however, failed to appear before the Consultative Mechanism and the Local Grievance Committee. Both the Committees submitted their reports to CSIR Headquarters. Based on the same the applicant was informed that the case was closed and he was warned that disciplinary action will be initiated against him as per the applicable rules.
15. The learned counsel for the respondents mentions that on 11.03.2019, the Applicant was issued a Memorandum under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, citing four Articles of Charges for misconduct, accompanied by a statement of imputation and related documents. The Applicant was directed to submit an explanation. The Applicant's response was received on 21.03.2019. Finding the explanation unsatisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Authority, and the Presenting Officer to proceed with formal disciplinary proceedings, as per the order dated 03.04.2019. The Article of Charges, which he was dealt with are as follows:-
Article of Charge I "That the said Dr. Sachin S Tharewal who joined CSIR-NAL w.e.f 12.10.2006 as Sr. Scientist Gr. IV(3) and while functioning as such committed the misconduct of dereliction of duty by not carrying out the assigned duties. Thus the aforesaid Dr Sachin S Tharewal has failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of council employee in contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(1 )(i)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, as made applicable to the Council employees."
Article of Charge II ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE "That the said Dr. Sachin S Tharewal who joined CSIR-NAL w.e.f 12.10.2006 as Sr. Scientist Gr. IV(J) and while functioning as such committed the misconduct of not submitting the work report on weekly basis as per written instruction by Director. Thus, the aforesaid Dr. Sachin S Tharewal has committed misconduct within the meaning of Govt. of India decision 26 and 26(a) under conduct Rule 3 and acted in a manner of unbecoming of a council employee in contravention of the provision of Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, as made applicable to the council employees. "
Article of Charge III "That the said Dr Sachin S Tharewal who joined CSIR-NAL w.e.f 12.10.2006 as Sr. Scientist Gr. IV(3) and while functioning as such committed the misconduct of not submitting Self Appraisal as part of prescribed Performance Mapping of Scientists from the Assessment Year 2012-13 upto 2017-18 inspite of issue of Office Memorandums to file the same. Thus, the aforesaid Dr Sachin S Tharewal has committed misconduct of wilful disobedience and acted in a manner of unbecoming of a council employee in contravention of I he provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as made applicable to the council employees."
Article of Charge IV "That the said Dr Sachin S Tharewal who joined CSIR-NAL w.e.f 12.10.2006 as Sr. Scientist Gr. IV(3) and while functioning as such committed the misconduct of writing to Prime Minister, Ministers, Director General, CSIR directly within the meaning of GoI decision 26 of Conduct Rule (3) writing directly on the same issue even after disposal by CSIR and thus committed a misconduct within the meaning of Govt. of India decision 26(a) of Conduct Rule (3). Thus, he has acted in a manner of unbecoming of a council employee in contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE (Conduct) Rules 1964, as made applicable to the council employees."
16. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the Applicant on 26.04.2019, in which the Charged Officer (CO), namely the Applicant, denied the charges. The Inquiry Officer proceeded with regular hearings thereafter. Subsequently, the Applicant requested for change of Inquiry Officer (IO), a request which was rejected by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned counsel for the respondents, points out that on 30.04.2019, the Applicant failed to inspect the documents as per the time fixed. However, in the interest of natural justice, he was given another opportunity to inspect those documents on 06.05.2019, but, the Applicant failed to utilise the opportunity and remained absent. The Applicant was also given opportunity till 10.05.2019 to submit the list of additional documents and defence witnesses. However, he failed to cite any documents or defence witnesses to prove his case.
17. The learned counsel for the respondents points out that the Presenting Officer submitted his brief on 24.09.2019, to which the Applicant failed to give any representation/explanation. The Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted his report on 10.02.2020, and a copy of the IO's report was furnished to the Applicant on 15.06.2020 for his response. The Applicant submitted a reply on 30.06.2020, in which, instead of directly addressing the charges, he focused on unrelated matters. The Applicant was granted an additional opportunity on 27.07.2020, and he submitted a further reply on 06.08.2020.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
18. The respondents' counsel submits that the Applicant, instead of contesting his case, was repeatedly sending emails to DG, CSIR to stop the proceedings and to close the inquiry stating that charge sheet against him was baseless and he was being framed by the Respondent No.03. Likewise, the Applicant, submitted a letter to the Inquiring Authority also to close the inquiry. However, the inquiry was continued and conclude as it was being held as per provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, wherein there is no provision to close the inquiry.
19. Based on the findings and evidence presented, the Director, CSlR-NAL, in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority, imposed a penalty of "Reduction to a lower stage in the pay level by four cells for a period of three years, with a further directive that no increments in pay will be granted during this period of reduction, and that upon its expiry, the reduction will have the effect of postponing future increments of his pay." This Penalty Order was issued by the Director, CSIR-NAL (Disciplinary Authority) on 20.11.2020.
20. The applicant submitted an appeal against the orders of the Disciplinary Authority on 07.01.2021. In his appeal, he made following submissions:
i. The final Punishment Order dated 20.11.2020 issued by the Disciplinary Authority was non-speaking. The DA did not even mention the illegalities in the Inquiry Officer's Report as p0inted out by the Charged Officer (CO).
ii. The Disciplinary Authority did not follow CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. He did not adhere to the principles of natural ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE justice, CVC instructions, Constitutional provisions pertaining to Fundamental Rights etc. iii. The chargesheet issued to him was signed only on covering letter page 2 whereas Charged Officer (CO) requested for the same to be fully signed on all pages. iv. The Charged Officer (CO) had earlier appealed to Dr. Mande (the then DG. CSIR) to quash the aforesaid charge memo but the same was ignored.
v. The CO, had twice called off the scheduled document inspections since he did not receive fully signed Memo, as mentioned above.
vi. The Inquiring Authority (IA) took 49 days to pass order on his submissions dated 27.5.2019, on which the IA deviated from regular procedure. The CO had accordingly, requested for change of IA on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, but his request was rejected.
vii. He did not do document inspection, nor called for additional documents and Defence Witnesses, nor took Defence Assistant, due to the above acts of omission and commission by the IA and DA.
viii. He submitted his written brief under R14 (19) but it was not taken on record by IA.
ix. He requested the Appellate Authority for a personal hearing in the matter, but his request was ignored.
21. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority in his proceedings dated 29.03.2023. In this order, he ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE addressed the issues raised by the appellant and mentioned the following:-
a. The chargesheet issued by the Disciplinary Authority vide the Memorandum No NAL/3(28) Vig-2018 dated 11.03.2019 to the Charged Officer i.e. the applicant, was duly signed by the Disciplinary Authority. There is no provision in the relevant CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 that all pages of the chargesheet are required to be signed. In the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority has signed the same on the second page and the same was valid. He asserted that the contention of the Charged Officer that signing of all pages would ensure that contents of the same are intact was a mere apprehension, which was not backed by any official rule, provision or guideline. The contention of the CO that he called off his right to inspect documents till the time the chargesheet was signed on all pages and was given to him was not supported by him by any rule/provision of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
b. The Appellate Authority, in his order, pointed out that there was no provision in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to accept an appeal from the CO to quash the chargesheet once the same had been issued. He stated that the Daily Order Sheets attached by the appellant, in his appeal, clearly indicate that sufficient opportunity was given to the applicant to inspect the listed documents which he did not avail during Preliminary hearing. c. The IA, as far the proceedings in this case was concerned, was an independent entity and was not reporting to any other authority. The Charged Officer was given all the reasonable opportunity as made ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE available to him under the CCS (CCA) Rules, l965 to defend himself.
d. The request of Charged Officer to change I.A. was rejected as he did not give any cogent or convincing reasons for the same. In fact the applicant has made general open-ended comments. He made baseless allegations of bias, without giving any specific instance and accordingly, his request was disposed by Director, NAL, Bengaluru and Disciplinary authority through speaking order vide Orders No. NAL/30(28)/Vig-2018 dated 29/8/2019 & 24/09/2019.
e. The Appellate Authority further mentioned in his Order that the Appellant was given opportunity to cross examine listed witnesses on 11th and 12th September, 2019 which was not availed by him. He further stated that there was no provision in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to reserve opportunities for inspection of documents, submission of additional documents and list of defence witnesses, cross-examination etc. and to exercise these rights at a future date. The Charged Officer failed to avail the opportunities provided to him, both at the time of the Preliminary and Regular inquiry. Hence, his allegation of prejudice was without any basis. The applicant did not subunit any defence documents or defence witness despite being provided opportunity as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on several occasions. On the contrary, the Charged Officer resorted to dilatory tactics by submitting various frivolous representations during Inquiry proceedings.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
22. We have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents. We have also carefully gone through all the documents and records including the judgments of the Supreme Court/ High Courts, relevant sections and clauses of the Departmental Rules etc., which were brought on record by the Party in Person and by the counsel for the respondents. Based on the material made available to us, the following facts are established:
A. It is clear that the applicant/Party in Person, has a poor professional record throughout his career, his performance was unsatisfactory and not up to the mark, necessitating frequent rotation to different jobs.
B. Responding to his several representations to senior echelons in the organization, the Director of CSIR-NAL even constituted a Committee in September 2015, to address the issues raised by him. However, the applicant failed to appear before the Committee. The Consultative and Grievance Committee submitted report to CSIR Headquarters based on which he was warned of Disciplinary action by the CSIR. C. The applicant was neither submitting his weekly performance reports nor feedback on the work assigned to him, even when he was kept on a very sensitive Ghatak Project work. He also repeatedly failed to submit his APARs. D. In view of his poor performance, ineptitude, indisciplined conduct etc. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in 2019.
E. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted strictly as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. This is evident from the fact that adequate opportunity was provided to the applicant/Party in ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 18 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE Person to represent/defend his case. This includes opportunity for inspection of records, opportunity for submission of list of defense witnesses and documents, & cross-examination of the witnesses, furnishing him Daily Order Sheets, brief of the Presenting Officer, furnishing of the Report of the Inquiry Authority, etc. In fact, several opportunities were granted to him at every stage during the course of the Disciplinary proceedings. The entire sequence of disciplinary proceedings is summarized as follows:-
i. The Charge Memo, was issued by Disciplinary Authority containing four Articles of Charge under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules on 11.03.2019. The applicant submitted the written reply to the aforesaid Memo on 21.03.2019. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer and the Presentation Officer were appointed by the Disciplinary Authority on 03.04.2019. The applicant failed to inspect the listed documents despite being given adequate opportunity from 30.04.2019 to 06.05.2019. The deadline given to applicant to submit list of documents/witnesses in defence was extended till 10.05.2019. The Inquiry was concluded on 24.09.2019.
The Inquiry report dated 10.02.2020 was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the notice along with the Inquiry Report, etc. was furnished to the applicant and the applicant submitted his written representation on Inquiry Report to Disciplinary Authority on 30.06.2020 & 06.08.2020. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of penalty, on 20.11.2020, imposing a penalty of "Reduction to lower stage in the pay level by four cells for a period of three ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 19 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE years with further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have effect of postponing the future increments of his pay." upon him.
ii. Thereafter, the applicant filed his appeal to the Appellate Authority and was received and examined by Appellate Authority on 07.01.2021. Appellate Authority passed detailed speaking order rejecting the appeal and upholding penalty order on 29.03.2023. Thereafter he filed the present OA before this Tribunal. F. The proceedings issued by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are detailed, cogent and have addressed every issue raised by the applicant.
G. Throughout the course of Disciplinary proceedings and during the conduct of hearings in the Tribunal, it is seen that the applicant has failed to give even one instance of corruption or inefficiency or malafide etc. on the part of his colleagues and superiors in his Organization.
H. The applicant requested the Tribunal that he should be permitted hearing in the Chamber wherein, he would disclose sensitive information under section 123 and 124 of Indian Evidence Act. However, his repeated request for in-camera proceedings/Chamber hearing could not be conceded as neither in the O.A, nor in the enclosed documents, nor during the course of the hearings, he could cite even one specific instance to substantiate his allegations mentioned above. He was not able to even give a hint of the so-called sensitive information that he had or provide even a shred of evidence to substantiate his claim that the PMO and/or the Ministry were following up ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 20 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE on his representations regarding sensitive Defence projects. Furthermore, regarding submission of confidential documents, as per certain sections of Indian Evidence Act, those to which he alluded to, the factual/legal position is explained as follows:-
Section 123: Affairs of State Prohibition:
No one can give evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to "affairs of state" without permission.
Permission:
The head of the concerned department has the discretion to grant or withhold permission.
Definition of "Affairs of State":
The term "affairs of state" is not explicitly defined, but it generally refers to matters concerning the government's functioning, national security, or public policy.
Importance of Section 123:
This section aims to protect sensitive government information and prevent its disclosure if it could be detrimental to the state's interests. Section 124: Official Communications Prohibition:
No public officer can be compelled to disclose communications made to them in official confidence. Public Interest:
The disclosure must be considered likely to harm the public interest for this protection to apply. Officer's Discretion:
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 21 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE The public officer, not the court, initially determines whether disclosure would harm the public interest. Judicial Scrutiny:
While the officer's initial assessment is important, the court ultimately decides whether the public interest is truly at stake.
In essence, Sections 123 and 124 work together to safeguard sensitive Government information by restricting the disclosure of official records and communications when it's deemed necessary to protect public interest or affairs of state.
I. In the light of above legal position, his request for interim relief regarding Chamber hearing/ in-camera proceedings could not be accepted as the applicant had absolutely nothing to show in terms of records/documents/material, which could have been the grounds for the same.
J. His interlocutory prayer for freezing the documents and for an opportunity to cross-examine the PWs were totally baseless as the disciplinary proceedings had already been completed in which he was given every opportunity to defend himself.
23. (a) Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority (Director & Disciplinary Authority) vide Memo No. NAL/3(28)Vig-2018 dated 20/11/2020, passed the Order, for the Applicant after due consideration.
(b) Subsequently, the Appellate Authority, having considered all the points put forth by the appellant, issued a detailed and well-reasoned speaking order with cogent reasons for each of the grounds raised by the applicant issued it order vide Order No. 17-01/NAL/2023/HR-III(Disc. Matters) dated 29.03.2023.
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 22 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
24. It is clear that all the contentions and averments of the applicant have been adequately addressed and answered by the learned counsel for the respondents. Nothing has been brought on record by the applicant as Party in Person, that the Disciplinary Proceedings which were conducted against the applicant violated the laid down norms and procedures.
25. In this regard, it would be beneficial to refer to the relevant portions of the judgment of Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Dalbir Singh, in Civil Appeal No. 5848/2021, AIR (2021) SC 4504. The relevant paras are as follows:
"21........
"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, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 23 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good."
26. Furthermore, there are a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts which indicate that the Courts and Tribunals can interfere in Disciplinary Proceedings in very limited situations and circumstances. In brief, the Situations in which court can interfere in departmental proceedings are delineated below:
A. Violation of Natural Justice:
If the principles of natural justice, such as the right to a fair hearing or the right to cross-examine witnesses, are violated, the court may intervene.
B. Violation of Statutory Regulations: If the departmental inquiry was conducted contrary to the prescribed statutory rules and regulations, the court can step in.
C. Perverse or Arbitrary Findings:
If the findings of the disciplinary authority are found to be perverse, arbitrary, or not supported by any evidence, the court can interfere.
D. Extraneous Considerations:
If the disciplinary authority's decision is based on considerations outside the scope of the evidence or the merits of the case, the court may intervene. E. Disproportionate Punishment:
If the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct, the court may consider it a ground for ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 24 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE interference, although courts are generally reluctant to substitute their own judgment on punishment. F. Lack of Jurisdiction or Bias:
If the disciplinary authority lacks the jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry or if there is a demonstrable bias against the delinquent employee, the court may intervene. G. Violation of Statutory Rules:
If the disciplinary proceedings violate any specific statutory rules governing such proceedings, the court can interfere.
H. No Evidence:
If the disciplinary authority's findings are not supported by any evidence, the court can intervene.
A. In this regard, for ease of convenience, relevant extract of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, in para nos. 12, 13, 16 & 17 are cited below: "12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence.
The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 25 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(2015) 2 SCC 610 (1977) 2 SCC 491 (2014) 4 SCC 108
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
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.
16. These principles have been succinctly summed up by the living legend and centenarian V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491: 1977 SCC (L&S) 298]. To quote the unparalleled and inimitable expressions: (SCC p. 493, para 4) "4. ... 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 textbooks, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial ajay mudgal ajay CAT Bangalore 2025.07.30 mudgal16:25:12 +05'30' 26 O.A.No.170/00310/2024/CAT/BANGALORE approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play 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."
27. It is abundantly clear from the above facts and circumstances, that Disciplinary Proceedings were conducted in a proper manner as per the laid down Conduct Rules. There is nothing on record to show that any malafide was involved.
28. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Disciplinary Proceedings and the punishment imposed. Hence, the O.A is liable to be dismissed.
29. The O.A is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA) (JUSTICE B. K. SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/am/
ajay mudgal
ajay CAT Bangalore
2025.07.30
mudgal16:25:12
+05'30'