Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Munnu Lal Mishra vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 24 July, 2025
OA No. 333 of 2024
(Reserved on 17.07.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad, this the 24th day of July, 2025.
Original Application No.333/2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
Munnu Lal Mishra, Assistant Commissioner, Group 'A', retired from Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Agra, aged about 60 years, Son of Sri
Harsh Narayan Shastri, Resident of Atri Nagar, Ward No. 13, Bhaadra Kali
Road Bhawani Ganj, Atra Banda U.P.-210201.
.......Applicant.
By Advocate : Shri Anil Kumar Singh
Shri Rohit Singh
Shri Ramji Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary Govt. of India, Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Department of School Education &
Literacy, Shastari Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional
Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016.
3. Ms. Nidhi Pandey Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-
110016.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Devendra Pratap Singh
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri Rohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Devendra Pratrap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
"(i) To quash the orders dated 04.01.2024 and 15.02.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure -A1).
(ii) To command the respondents not to initiate departmental enquiry against the applicant with the present inquiry officer Shri Vinod Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, KVS Raipur Chattisgarh (Junior to the applicant).RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 1 of 8 OA No. 333 of 2024
(iii) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of application in favour of the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has retired from service from the Post of Assistant Commissioner, KVS RO, Agra on 31.12.2023. Before the date of retirement, the Respondent No. 2 served an antedated charge sheet dated 23.11.2023 alleging some irregularity in the transfer cases for admission of students since year 2019-2020 to year 2022- 2023 in various schools controlled by the Kendriya Vidhyalay Sangthan RO Agra. The applicant submitted his explanation on 15.12.2023 denying the allegations leveled against him and requested to exonerate the applicant and also to provide him opportunity for personal hearing. The Respondent No. 2 did not consider the representation of the applicant and appointed Shri Vinod Kumar Deputy Commissioner, KVS, Raipur Chhattisgarh inquiry officer and Shri Sanjeet Sinha Assistant Commissioner KVS, RO Kolkata as presenting officer. On 30.01.2024, the Inquiry Officer directed the applicant to appear before him for preliminary hearing on 14.02.2024. In reference to the letter of Inquiry Officer, the applicant submitted his representation dated 02.02.2024 to respondent no. 2 stating therein that the I.O. is biased against the applicant due to heated discussions held in between the applicant and inquiry officer appointed in a conference. The applicant and inquiry officer have attended three conferences together at Madurai, Kolkata and Munnar. On 05.02.2024, the applicant made a representation to Respondent No. 2 to release the provisional pension and again On 07.02.2024, the applicant made another application for release of his pensionery benefits.
4. Heard the rival submissions.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the seniority list of Assistant Commissioners, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, where the RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 2 of 8 OA No. 333 of 2024 applicant is at Serial No. 13, Ms. Minaxi Jain (next junior) at Serial No. 14, and the Inquiry Officer at Serial No. 19. The Inquiry Officer was promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner through direct recruitment vide order dated 02.07.2021, where his name appears at Serial No. 4. It is further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings have no effect on the applicant's promotion on the post of Deputy Commissioner, as he was previously exonerated in previous departmental proceedings. The Respondent No. 3 has developed a personal grudge against the applicant, as she was named in Contempt Petition No. 2470/2023. It is also submitted that vide letter dated 21.02.2024, the Inquiry Officer directed the applicant to appear before him on 05.03.2024 at RO, Raipur, KVS, Chhattisgarh for preliminary hearing. On 27.02.2024, the applicant made a representation to Respondent No. 2 seeking provisional pension and sanction of Rs. 30,000/- to attend the proceedings at Raipur. Hence, this OA.
6. The respondents have strongly refuted the allegations and submitted that the Inquiry Officer appointed against the charged officer (applicant) has not attended three conferences as claimed by the applicant at Madurai, KolKata and Munnar. Rather he has attended only 02 conference of Assistant Commissioners were organized by KVS (HQ) at Madurai and Munnar. The Inquiry Officer attended only first conference at Madurai and in that conference there has been no interaction and any sort of heated argument with charged officer (applicant). Learned counsel for the respondents has mainly relied on the following three judgments, which is as under :-
(i) Ms/Medley Minerals India Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa in Civil Appeal No.10106 of 2003 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.09.2004.
(ii) State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna in Civil Appeal No. 6963 of 2000 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.11.2000.RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 3 of 8 OA No. 333 of 2024
(Iii) Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. G.M. (P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Haldia & ors in Civil Appeal No. 4544 of 2005 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.09.2005.
7. In the case of Ms/Medley Minerals India Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given the following observation, which is reproduced as below :-
"We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the action of the State Government was vitiated by malafides. It is trite that plea of malafides has to be specific and demonstrable. Not only this, but the person against whom the malafides are alleged must be made a party to the proceedings and given reasonable opportunity of hearing. We find no such attempt made in the writ petition before the High Court. At the highest even putting the most liberal construction on the writ petition, what was alleged was contravention of the Rules and, consequently, legal malafides and nothing beyond that. The argument of malafides must therefore fail. Next, it is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is an elementary principle of law that an individual shareholder of a company cannot be considered as equivalent to the company, for company has a distinct legal personality. Consequently, he contends that the application made by Jitendra Kumar Lohia could not have enured to the benefit of the appellant company. According to him, Jitendra Kumar Lohia and the appellant being two distinct legal entities, the assumption of the State Government, that the application for renewal of the quarry lease could be treated as a continuation of Jitendra Kumar Lohia's application, was erroneous and unsustainable in law. We are unable to accept this contention. We have highlighted as to how the State Government and Jitendra Kumar Lohia treated the application for renewal of quarry lease made by Jitendra Kumar Lohia as enuring for the benefit of the appellant company. If the State Government had treated them to be separate legal entities, there was no question of imposing a condition on the appellant that the transfer of the lease was granted on the specific condition that Jitendra Kumar Lohia and his family members hold the controlling interest in the company. The facts and circumstances belie this contention of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. It cannot be accepted.
8. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given the following observation, which is reproduced as below :-
"Bias admittedly negates fairness and reasonableness by reason of which arbitrariness and malafide move creep in issuance of the two notifications assuming in hot haste but no particulars of any malafides move or action has been brought out on record on the part of Shri V.K. Khanna - while it is true that the notings prepared for Advocate General's opinion contain a definite remark about the malafide move on the part of Shri V.K. Khanna yet there is singular absence of any particulars without which the case of malafides cannot be sustained. The expression malafide has a definite significance in the legal phraseology and the same cannot possibly emanate out of fanciful imagination or even apprehensions but there must be existing definite evidence of bias and actions which cannot be attributed to be otherwise bonafide- actions not otherwise bonafide, however, by themselves would not amount to be malafide unless the same is in RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 4 of 8 OA No. 333 of 2024 accompaniment with some other factors which would depict a bad motive or intent on the part of the doer of the act."
9. Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. G.M. (P.J.) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia & ors, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given the following observation, which is reproduced as below :-
"In our view, neither the learned single Judge nor the Division Bench has committed any error of law and/or of jurisdiction which deserves interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. As is clear, the situation has been created by the appellant. It was very grave and serious and called for immediate stern action by the General Manager. Exercise of extraordinary power in exceptional circumstances under Standing Order 20 (vi) in the circumstances, cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide. It is well-settled that the burden of proving mala fide is on the person making the allegations and the burden is "very heavy".
[vide E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (1974) 4 SCC 3]. There is every presumption in favour of the administration that the power has been exercised bona fide and in good faith. It is to be remembered that the allegations of mala fide are often more easily made than made out and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high decree of credibility. As Krishna Iyer, J. stated in Gulam Mustafa & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others (1976) 1 SCC 800; "It (Mala fide) is the last refuge of a losing litigant".
10. Learned counsel for the respondents by the above citations have tried to establish that if any party alleges the issue of malafide, the person against whom malafide is alleged must be made a party to defend himself against such allegation. In the present case, the Inquiry Officer appointed by the respondents has not been made any respondents and he cannot defend allegation of bias or malafide raised against him. The Inquiry Officer appointed by the respondents is an upright and impartial officer and there is no reason for applicant to doubt his impartiality. Inquiry Officer and applicant have attended only one seminar at Madurai contrary to claim made by applicant and that too he never had any heated discussion with applicant. On the basis of above discussion, he has submitted that the relief claimed by the applicant is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the OA should also be dismissed.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 5 of 8 OA No. 333 of 2024
11. In rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has reiterated the similar facts as given in the OA and added that the applicant has been exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings due to which his promotion was kept in sealed cover and as such he is deemed to be promoted since 09.07.2020 on the post of Dy. Commissioner. In this view of fact the appointment of Sri Vinod Kumar IO is bad in law as he is junior to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the matter of changing of the Inquiry Officer on the application of the delinquent inquiry on the ground of bias has been decided in the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, High Court and the Hon'ble Tribunal in catena of decisions holding therein that if the delinquent employee raises any doubt and bias against the Inquiry Officer, it is proper in the eye of law that the Inquiry Officer must be changed. On the basis of above submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has requested to allow the OA.
12. This Tribunal vide order dated 24.05.2024 granted the interim relief in favour of the applicant, which is reproduced as below :-
"Heard on interim relief.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that interim order may be granted and order dated 04.01.2024 and 15.02.2024 may be stayed. He also submitted that respondents may be directed to change the present Inquiry Officer Shri Vinod Kumar Deputy Commissioner KVS RO, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and appoint some other inquiry officer from other than KVS or any retired Deputy Commissioner of KVS or from any other department of Ministry of Education, Government of India on the basis of reasons cited in the pleadings.
Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the following judgments and pressed for interim relief :-
1. Parveen Nanda Vs. UOI & Ors. in OA No.2 of 2011 decided by CAT, Chandigarh Bench on 23.08.2011. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as below :-
"In this case the applicant had levelled very serious allegations against respondent no. 4 and that being so, it would have been better for the respondents to have changed the Inquiry Officer. In any case, even if the same are treated as baseless, yet once the allegations have been made, the prejudice on the part of the I.O. cannot be ruled out. The Department is not short of officers who can enquire into the matter and we do not find any valid grounds on which the respondents found it difficult to accept the prayer of the applicant once she has expressed her serious RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 6 of 8 OA No. 333 of 2024 apprehensions against the Inquiry Officer. It will not cause any prejudice to the rights of the respondents to make out their case in departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant."
2. Indrani Bai Vs. UOI & ors. passed by Hon'ble Supeme Court on 21.04.1994. the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as below :
".............It is seen that right through, the delinquent officer had entertained a doubt about the impartiality of the enquiry to be conducted by the enquiry officer. When he made a representation at the earliest, requesting to change the enquiry officer, the authorities should have acceded to the request and appointed another enquiry officer, other than the one whose objectivity was doubted......"
3. Registrar, Cooperative Societies Vs. F.X. Fernando passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.02.1994. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as below :-
"Therefore, we would direct that another Enquiry Officer be appointed in order to remove any apprehension of bias on the part of respondent."
On the basis of above judgments, learned counsel for the applicant seeks interim relief in the matter.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant citing that the present Inquiry Offier is not at all biased and not an incompetent officer still he wants time to file the written objection to the interim relief claimed by the learned counsel for the applicant.
We have gone through the rival submissions and are of the opinion that it is pre-mature case to grant the interim relief without providing opportunity of putting their side to learned counsel for the respondents.
In the circumstances of the case, the respondents are restrained from continuing the inquiry till the next date of listing.
Learned counsel for the respondents is granted four weeks time to file the counter affidavit/objection on the prayer of interim relief claimed by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant may file the reply/rejoinder to the counter affidavit/objection filed by the respondents within two weeks thereafter."
13. Heard the rival submissions and gone into the records and have analysed the reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant dealing with appointment of inquiry officer. In the case of Parveen Nanda Vs. UOI & Ors. in OA No.2 of 2011 decided by CAT, Chandigarh Bench on 23.08.2011, it has been specifically observed that if there are serious allegation against the Inquiry Officer, it is better for the respondents to change the inquiry officer. Once the allegations have been made, the prejudice on the part of the inquiry officer cannot be ruled out. There may not be any shortage of competent and impartial officers in the department to do the inquiry and hence respondents RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 7 of 8 OA No. 333 of 2024 should have changed the same. In the case of Indrani Bai Vs. UOI & ors., the Hon'ble Apex has observed that once delinquent officer has made a representation requesting for change the enquiry officer, the authorities should have acceded to the request and appointed another enquiry officer. In the case of Registrar, Cooperative Societies Vs. F.X. Fernando, the Apex Court has observed that on apprehension of bias it is worthy to change the inquiry officer.
14. On the basis of above discussions, it is very clear that the reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondents is of general nature. Even we presume that inquiry officer has been impleaded a respondent and while facing such allegation, generally he will himself recuse from conducting the inquiry unless he has to settle some score with the delinquent officer. As inquiry officer was originally junior to applicant, applicant has raised objection for continuance of inquiry officer and there are supporting case laws in favour of applicant, it is desirable for Disciplinary Authority to change the inquiry officer.
15. In the light of above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the applicant has established a reasonable case for grant of relief claimed. The OA is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. The order dated 15.02.2024 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to appoint another impartial inquiry officer and complete the inquiry within the time prescribed under the rules to conclude the disciplinary case. No order as to costs.
16. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member(Administrative) Member(Judicial)
RKM/
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 8 of 8