Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Laxmi Kant Tripathi vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2025
Reserved on 14.07.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 29th day of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 906 of 2015
Laxmi Kant Tripathi aged about 46, S/o Sri Jai Ram Tripathi, R/o
1c/2 Nehnikunj, Bhagambari gaddi, Allahpur, Allahabd.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Abhishek Tripathi and Shri Dharmendra
Tiwari
Versus
1. Union of India, through Comptroller & Auditor General of India,
9 Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi - 110002.
2. Deputy Comptroller & Auditor General & Appellate Authority
o/o C7AG of India.
3. Accountant General (A&E), Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad.
4. Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority / Accountant General (A&E) II
U.P., Allahabad.
5. Enquiry Officer, Retd. Sr. Accounts Officer (Sri Dipti Singh) o/o
AG (A.E.) I U.P., Allahabad.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri R.K. Srivastava
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Abhishek Tripathi and Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Shri R K Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"i. To consider for issuing orders or directions, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Appellate RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page Orders of penalty (02.03.2015) (A-1) and the original order dated 05.04.2013 (A-2) and the enquiry report dated 11.2.2013 (A-3) ii. To consider for issuing orders or directions, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for setting aside the impugned orders of amended penalty (02.03.2015) (A-1) and the original order dated 05.04.2013 (A-2) and the enquiry report dated 11.02.2013 (A-3) and to allow all consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and allowances and promotions.
iii. To consider any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. To award the cost of the application throughout."
3. A compendium of the facts as have been narrated in the present original application is that the applicant, who is a permanent employee of the respondents' department, has alleged that he has been wrongly framed by the respondents citing his role in the incident dated 24.02.2012 that took place in the office. The said incident pertained to surprise attendance check by the officials of the department which caused panic among the staff of the office and that unreasonable and arbitrary exercise on the part of the department also caused provoked a general dissent against the concerned DAG and further cause inconvenience to everyone. It has been contended in the OA by the applicant that after a lapse of more than four months, the applicant was falsely implicated in the alleged occurrence took place on 24.02.2012 and subsequently an illegal charge sheet was also issued against the applicant. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer but that too was conducted in absolute violation of the extant rules and provisions as enshrined in the statutes. It has been specifically alleged by the applicant in the OA that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the relevant CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as the applicant was not given reasonable opportunity to defend his case and further, violation of principles of natural justice also took place RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page during the course of the inquiry. It has also been alleged that orders as were passed by the authorities concerned subsequent to the submission of the inquiry report are also illegal and arbitrary. Thus, by way of the instant OA, the applicant seeks quashing of the enquiry report dated 11.02.2013 submitted by the inquiry officer, the order dated 05.04.2013 issued by the Disciplinary Authority and also order dated 02.03.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority by way of which the appeal preferred by the applicant was rejected. Subject to quashing of the aforesaid orders, the applicant seeks a direction to the respondents to refix the pay scale of the applicant as he was holding prior to the passing of the impugned orders and also confer all the consequential benefits upon him. Respondents on the other hand have filed counter affidavit rebutting the averments of the applicant and have contended that allegations of serious nature were leveled against the applicant subsequent to which inquiry was conducted by the inquiry officer. The inquiry was conducted in absolute accordance with the prescribed rules and statutory provisions and furthermore, the orders passed subsequently by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are reasoned and speaking to which no illegality and perversity can be attributed.
4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.
5. Initiating his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed in 1994 as Clerk in the office of Accountant General (A&E) - I & II, U.P. Allahabad. In 2009, he was promoted to the post of Accountant. It was argued that on 24.02.2012, without any prior notice, the administration conducted a surprise check of attendance by closing all exit doors of the multi-storey lift building causing panic by their sudden lockout in the office. A team of officers were deputed for the physical verification of the employees. Such illegal action caused discontentment and panic among the employees. It was next argued that the aforesaid action of the respondents aggravated the general atmosphere of the Office. It provoked general dissent against the RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page DAG concerned before the chamber of AG (A&E-I). Such illegal action of DAG initiated dissent and caused inconvenience to everyone and only after the intervention of the Principal Accountant General (PAG) everyone was made to leave around 10 pm. It was next argued that after a lapse of more than four months, the applicant was falsely implicated in the alleged occurrence of 24.02.2012. For the alleged mob discontentment, the respondents have picked up arbitrarily the individuals without any preliminary enquiry / fact finding inquiry. On 09.07.2012, the applicant was sent a charge sheet which was framed without a specific foundations and the entire allegation was vague, unfounded and conjectural / arbitrary. On 20.07.2012, the respondent no. 4 (Ad-hoc disciplinary authority) appointed the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The inquiry was conducted hurriedly and in violation of the mandatory provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was further argued that on 16.01.2013, the presenting officer submitted the written brief. The defence assistant of the applicant submitted the written brief on 30.01.2013 pointing out all the procedural impropriety. The enquiry report dated 11.02.2013 was served to the applicant on 04.03.2013. The enquiry report has established the charges on the grounds of incontrovertibly proved (meaning without contest). It was next argued that the order of the Ad-hoc disciplinary authority dated 05.04.2013 has failed to take the objections of the applicant that gross violation of the rules has taken place in the enquiry. Even the aforesaid Authority has stated that the charges are incontrovertibly proved. The order was passed violating Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and it is perverse, non-speaking and illegal. Respondent No 4 Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order dated 10.04.2013 reducing the pay and post of the applicant for seven years while imposing two major penalties. Aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the applicant filed an appeal and the appellate authority on 02.03.2015 rejected the appeal with cryptic, non- speaking and non-reasoned order with little modification on the penalty order regarding future increment.
RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant was denied to produce defence witness on his behalf. Not even a single witness was allowed by the inquiry officer for the reason that he considered them as irrelevant. It was argued that the inquiry officer cannot decide the relevancy of the witness for allowing the defence witness. As per Rule 14(11)(ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, the IO will ask the Charged Official to 'submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf'. When such list is submitted then the IO is under the statutory obligation to allow the witnesses for examination. It is mandatory on the IO in terms of Rule 14(17) of CCS (CCA) Rules to allow the defence witness for examination. To substantiate this fact, learned counsel referred to the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs State of UP & Ors reported in MANU/UP/1380/1990; the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Ranjan Sarvate Vs Allahabad Bank and Ors reported in MANU/MP/0811/2012 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Badal Prasad Vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors reported in MANU/JH/0406/2000. It was argued that the respective Courts in the aforesaid cases have held that the inquiry officer is not clubbed with the powers to hold that defence witneses are not materially important and that the delinquent must be given opportunity to produce witnesses to prove his defence.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the IO / PO without examining the statement writers or putting the statement in front of them and asking the correctness and authenticity of the statement in the presence of the applicant, straightway produced the statement writers for cross-examination. The statement writers have not confirmed their statement hence, it cannot become evidence without confirming it in the departmental proceedings. It was argued that no chief examination / examination of the statement writers were done in the departmental enquiry. It is mandatory to examine the witness as per Rule 14(14) of CCS (CCA) Rules. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on Office RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page Memorandum No. 134/7/75-AVD.I dated 11.06.1976 claiming the same was issued regarding the admissibility of evidence. It was argued that the OM states the statement of witnesses recorded previously should be read out to the applicant and then get admitted as evidence but the said provision was violated. To substantiate this fact, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank and Ors reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and also in Khardah and Co Ltd Vs Workmen reported in AIR 1964 SC 719 arguing that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid cases has held that recording evidence in the presence of workmen concerned serves a very important purpose and the idea of recording statement ex-parte and then producing the witnesses before the employee concerned for cross examination is inappropriate. For the aforesaid argument, reliance has also been placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of State of UP and Ors Vs CS Sharma reported in AIR 1963 All 94 and in the case of Ghirrao Lal Srivastava Vs State of UP and Ors reported in 1974 SCC Online All 153.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the applicant has also not examined himself when it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer as per Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules to question the applicant regarding the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. Such non-adherence has caused substantial prejudice because the entire charges were proved incontrovertibly by the inquiry officer. To substantiate the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ministry of Finance and Anr Vs S B Ramesh reported in (1998) 3 SCC 227.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the respondents' authorities have imposed two major penalties i.e., (i) reduction to the lower post of Clerk from Accountant and (ii) reduction of basic pay to Rs 5830/- for a period of seven years. Such RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page an act of imposing two major penalties is ultra vires to Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules and bad in law. To substantiate this fact, learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs S C Parashar reported in (20060 3 SCC 167.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that non- disclosure of the documents and denial of the list of documents 'without any reason' by the IO had caused serious prejudice to the applicant and clearly a denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a rebuttal. Such denial violates Rule 14(12) & (13) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Further, the applicant has not been intimated before the issuance of the charge sheet dated 09.07.2012 as to when the competent authority referred the matter and by which Presidential Order, the ad-hoc disciplinary authority was appointed and whether any preliminary enquiry was held in the matter or not. Thus, referring to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, prayer was made to allow the OA and quash the impugned orders. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to restore the pay of the applicant and provide all the consequential benefits to the applicant as if the impugned orders had never been passed.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the pleadings of the applicant's counsel and referring to his counter affidavit, he argued that on 24.02.2012, consequent to the action taken by the department to check the attendance of the employees, the applicant along with many other employees conspired to form a mob and did serious damage to the decorum of the office. They entered the chambers of the senior officers, hurled abuses and threatened them of serious consequences. They further shouted disrespectful and provocative slogans in front of other employees including the female staff, attempted to gherao them and also incited the other employees to join their protest and agitation. They even damaged the office property and threw broken glasses, broom sticks, bottles of acid, mug, stones etc into the chamber of senior officer Shri RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page Sachin Kapoor with an intention to hurt him. They also prevented the other employees to leave the office. The act of the employees was so dreadful that an FIR was lodged by the office of AG (A&E) - II UP Allahabad in Civil Lines Police Station Allahabad on the same night of the incident. Thereafter, 11 employees were prima facie identified for the said serious misconduct and were placed under suspension. One more FIR was lodged subsequently also for the continued misconduct of the employees.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that since by his actions, the applicant violated the provisions of Rule 3(1)(iii), Rule 7(i) read with Government of India's Decision No (4) below Rule 7, Rule 7 (i) and 7 (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as such, on the basis of the available evidence, the applicant was issued charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memo dated 09.07.2012. After receipt of the reply preferred by the applicant on his charge sheet, inquiry was initiated. The list of documents by which the charges were proposed to be sustained included statements and reports of witnesses whereas the list of witnesses by whom the charges were proposed to be sustained was nil. The said memorandum dated 09.07.2012 was reviewed by the ad-hoc disciplinary authority and keeping in view the requirement of principles of natural justice, the list of witnesses was modified vide corrigendum dated 17.08.2012 and thirteen witnesses were included in the list of witnesses whose statements and reports were already mention in the list of documents so that the applicant may get the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. The inquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the CCS (CCA) Rules and also in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The applicant was given the reasonable opportunity of hearing and opportunity to defend his case. Charges leveled against the applicant were found proved. Reply was also obtained from the applicant. And only after consideration of the inquiry report and the reply preferred by the applicant, the ad-hoc disciplinary authority RITU RAJ SINGH
8|Page imposed the following penalty as specified in Rule 11 (vi) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965:
"Reduction to a lower post of Clerk in the Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- with minimum basic pay of Rs. 5830/- in the Pay Band-1 (Rs. 5200 - 20200) for a period of seven years with immediate effect. On the expiry of the said period, the Charged Official shall regain his original seniority in the grade of Accountant and the period of reduction to the post of Clerk shall postpone future increments of his pay."
Subsequently, the applicant preferred an appeal dated 17.05.2013 against the order dated 05.04.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority vide order dated 02.03.2015 found that the charges against the appellant stood proved. However, still, taking into consideration the fact that the penalty imposed on the applicant will have a lifelong impact not only on his pay but also on his pension including family pension which will cause financial hardship to his family. Therefore, taking a compassionate view, the Appellate Authority ordered that only the last part of the penalty to be amended as "reduction to a lower post of Clerk in with minimum basic pay of Rs. 5830/- in the Pay Band - I (Rs. 5200 - 20200) with Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- for a period of seven years with further direction that on the expiry of said period, he shall regain his original seniority in the grade of Accountant and the period of reduction to the post of Clerk shall not postpone future increments of his pay."
13. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the misconduct of the applicant was of a serious nature as his actions not only caused disturbance to the office environment but also jeopardized the security and safety of the fellow colleagues and also lead to damage of office property. Serious and direct attempts were made by him and the mob he was a part of to inflict injuries upon the senior officers of the department. It was also argued that the applicant has been a habitual offender. Previously also, his acts have violated the rules prescribed for a government servant due to which he has suspended earlier also. As far as this particular misconduct of the applicant is concerned, innumerable evidence have been brought on RITU RAJ SINGH
9|Page record on the part of the department during the course of disciplinary inquiry which ascertained the involvement of the applicant in the incident as discussed above. The witnesses examined during the course of proceedings have also established the presence and involvement of the applicant in the incident. Furthermore, the applicant himself, during the course of inquiry on 03.12.2012, in his defence statement dated 09.01.2013, written brief dated 30.01.2013 and in his observations dated 18.03.2013 on the report of the inquiry authority, had also accepted his presence in front of the chamber of the Accountant General (A&E) - I, which the mob attempted to vandalize and inflict serious injury to the officer concerned. It was further argued that the contention made by the applicant that the statements and video clippings related to the charge sheets issued to him were got prepared and fabricated to falsely implicate some officials on the basis of pick and choose for mob agitation and that the charge sheet was prepared without specific foundation is not correct. It was argued that the action was taken against the employees as per provisions of the extant rules, who were identified for their involvement in the misconduct related to the incident of 24.02.2012 on the basis of evidences, without any prejudice in this regard.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that once it has been established that the applicant was part of the mob that committed misconduct on the date of the incident, it is not necessarily required to prove any specific role of the applicant whatsoever. Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and another Vs Tulsiram Patel and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 1416 wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that it is not necessary to segregate and pin point the particular role played by each individual, once his presence and involvement in the scene of crime has been proved.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the contention of the applicant that he was not consulted before the RITU RAJ SINGH 10 | P a g e appointment of ad-hoc disciplinary authority, is absolutely baseless and uncalled for. It was argued that since the regular disciplinary authority, i.e., Deputy Accountant General (Admn.) was witness of a few misconduct of the applicant, as such, in exercise of power conferred by the clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the President after consultation with the C & A.G. of India directed that the incumbent Accountant General (A&E)
- II, UP, Allahabad shall act as Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. There is no provision in the rules to report such consultation to the charged official. Thus, the ad-hoc disciplinary authority was appointed in conformity with the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Furthermore, the applicant was also given reasonable opportunity to engage his defence assistant. This is evident from the fact that he nominated one Shri Babu Lal as his defence assistant and when he withdrew on account of his illness, the applicant nominated Shri P N Tripathi as his defence assistant. It was also argued that contention of the applicant that his request for additional documents was not considered by the inquiry authority is not correct and it was further argued that, it is absolutely clear from the inquiry proceeding dated 21.11.2012 that the request for additional documents by the applicant was duly considered by the Inquiry Authority in light of the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules and thus there has been no violation on the part of the respondents.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the inquiry authority, during the course of inquiry on 03.12.2012, asked the applicant about his defence as self-witness. The applicant stated that he had submitted his written statement to the ad-hoc disciplinary authority on 19.07.2012. Moreover, the defence assistant stated during the course of inquiry on 03.12.2012 that inquiry authority has given full opportunity to the charge official. The defence assistant has further stated that he and the applicant fully agree with this opportunity. Therefore, provisions of Rule 14(16) and 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have been fully adhered to in the inquiry RITU RAJ SINGH 11 | P a g e proceedings and no violation of the aforesaid provisions was made. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case, it was argued that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders and therefore the instant OA is liable to be dismissed.
17. To substantiate his case, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following case laws:
i. Judgment dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ A No. 885 of 2017 titled Union of India and three others Vs Rajendra Kumar Mishra and another.
ii. Judgment dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Ernakulam Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 340 of 2024 titled Ravindran K N Vs Union of India and ors.
iii. Judgment dated 16.03.2017 passed by the Allahabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 440 of 2015 titled Yash Malviya Vs Union of India and others.
iv. Judgment dated 26.03.1980 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1277 of 1975 titled Sunil Kumar Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal and ors.
18. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant wherein the same facts as have been narrated in the OA have been reiterated.
19. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the documents on record and carefully perused the entire case laws as relied upon by the contesting parties.
20. As the facts of the case have already been narrated above in detail therefore the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. First we take up the issue of appointment of ad-hoc disciplinary authority. A perusal of the entire record reveals that Shri Sachin Kapoor, the disciplinary authority was himself witness in all the disciplinary proceedings and due to this reason, issue was raised up RITU RAJ SINGH 12 | P a g e to the stage of Hon'ble President of India. The Hon'ble President of India has issued a gazette notification appointing the incumbent Accountant General (A&E - II), Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad as ad-hoc disciplinary authority. This issue was also raised in OA No. 440 of 2015 decided on 16.03.2017 by this Bench in Yash Malviya Vs Union of India and others wherein also the applicant of that OA had approached before the Tribunal against the punishment order imposed upon him in regard to same prosecution for appointment of ad-hoc disciplinary authority by the Hon'ble President of India. The relevant portion of the judgment and order is as follows:
"6. The main contention of the applicant is that the Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority (Shri Sarat Chaturvedi), Accountant General (A & E)-II U.P. Allahabad was never appointed in the instant matter by way of Presidential orders with a Gazette Notification. In this regard, the respondents have furnished before this Court a letter no. 101-Staff (Disc.I) 5-2012 dated 22.06.2012 issued by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to Mr. Sarat Chaturvedi, Accountant General (A & E)-I, Allahabad regarding appointment of the incumbent Accountant General (A&E)-II, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad as ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority. The relevant portion of the aforesaid letter is reproduced below:
".. I am to intimate that in exercise of powers conferred by the clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has directed that in connection with the disciplinary proceedings against thirty seven (37) officers/officials of the Offices of the Accountant General (A &E)-I and the Accountant General (A & E)-I, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad, the incumbent Accountant General (A 8& E)-II), Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad shall act as the Disciplinary Authority.
3. Accordingly, I request you to please initiate the disciplinary proceedings against aforesaid third seven (37) officers/officials of the Offices of the Accountant General (A & E)-| and the Accountant General (A & E)-I1, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad as per extant rules at the earlier and conclude the same within the prescribed time frame..."
RITU RAJ SINGH 13 | P a g e From the above it is clear that indeed the Accountant General was appointed as the ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority as the regular Disciplinary Authority i.e., the Deputy Accountant General (Admn) was witness of a few misconduct of the applicant.
7. Further, the applicant showed copy of the letter 14.06.2012 from the Ministry of Finance wherein the Ministry has issued the notification regarding the appointment of incumbent Accountant General (A&E)-II, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad and submitted that the letter dated 22.06.2012 on which the respondents are placing reliance has not been issued by the Ministry of Finance. From a bare perusal of the letter dated 14.06.2012, it is clear that the said letter was issued by the Ministry of Finance after the applicant preffered an appeal under the RTI Act. The Ministry of Finance has only provided an information to the applicant with regard to his appeal. There is no need for approval from the Finance Ministry as the Finance Ministry came into place only at the time of appeal - as is clear from the fact that the order of Ministry is only on the matter of appeal. The original notification was issued by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to the Accountant General (A&E)-I| Allahabad which is dated 22.06.2012."
Thus, this issue is now not res integra. The submissions raised on behalf of the applicant is not acceptable. Ad hoc disciplinary authority in respect of all the disciplinary proceedings pending in respect of same agitation said to have been made by the employees of the AG Office have been appointed.
21. Another question raised on behalf of the applicant is that CCTV footage is doctored and made up and it was not a proof in accordance with law and thus the CCTV footage could not have been taken into consideration while forming the opinion. We have gone minutely through the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant on this issue. In this respect, it is evident that four employees of the AG Office were dismissed from service for the same agitation. They approached before this Tribunal and there OA was allowed and order passed by the disciplinary authority was set aside. Thereafter, the Union of the India and the department concerned approached before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ A No. 885 of 2017, 888 of 2017, 67 of 2017, 63635 of 2015 RITU RAJ SINGH 14 | P a g e and 55726 of 2016 and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal restoring the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad while passing the judgment dated 10.05.2018 in para no. 41 has recorded the evidence against those four employees and on the basis of said evidence, order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon those employees dispensing with the inquiry was upheld. The relevant paragraph no 41 reads as under:
"41. The reasons recorded by the authorities for not holding the enquiry is reproduced herein-below:- "a. He was clearly caught in the CCTV recordings of 24.2.2012 at 16:24 hrs. breaking one of the biometric machines in the office of the Accountant General (A&E)-II, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad. The images of CCTV give a clear picture of said Shri Sanjay Kumar and he has been identified with reference to photographs contained in his service records. b. Officers and staff of both the A&E offices are not ready to come forward to depose against him in view of his violent behaviour and general atmosphere of terror created. c. Death threat given to Sri Kapoor, his family members, to Miss Saumya Parihar as well as to me as Deputy Accountant General (Admn.) and as Disciplinary Authority. d. Despite the presence of three Group Officers his behaviour went unabated. e. Continuous agitation by him with the help of some other employees and some outsiders. f. Selective threatening to the officers and staff outside office premises with the help of other suspended officials and outsiders by creating a traffic jam and individually threatening eye witness during the traffic jam even when Section 144 was in force and police was present, the FIR dated 2.3.2012 is placed in the file."
Submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant on this issue if taken into consideration, it is pertinent to record that when the said CCTV recording and video clip, have been relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad while passing its judgment in the aforesaid writs, thus, applicant's plea on this issue that the footages and clips were doctored and could not have been relied upon, is not acceptable.
RITU RAJ SINGH 15 | P a g e
22. The third point is regarding the compliance of provision of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. This issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sunil Kumar Benerjee Vs State of West Bengal and others reported in 1980 AIR SC 1170, a larger Bench for consideration and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that failure to comply with procedural requirement such as questioning the charged official does not vitiate the inquiry unless the delinquent officer establishes prejudice. It is also held that mere non-compliance of the preliminary rules akin to Section 313 of CRPC does not warrant interference. It is pertinent to mention that compliance of the provision of Rule 8(19) of the All India Services, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1969 was in issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Subsequently, in the year 1998 in S B Ramesh case (reported in AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 853), this issue regarding compliance of the provision of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in this case the Tribunal while deciding the OA had opined that non-interrogation of the charged official under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vitiates the entire proceedings because it is a mandatory provision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India affirmed the order passed by the Tribunal meaning thereby the provision of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was held as mandatory.
23. This issue again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2008 in Moni Shanker vs Union of India and another case which was Appeal (Civil) No. 1729 of 2008 decided on 04.03.2008 and in that case the Hon'ble Court explicitly held that "the High Court also committed a serious error in opining that compliance of Rule 9(21) of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 was not imperative. The purpose for which Rule 9(21) of Railway Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 has been framed is clear and unambiguous. The Railway servant must get an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him. In this case, he has been denied from the said opportunity. Thus, RITU RAJ SINGH 16 | P a g e Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was of the view that if the charged official has not examined himself as a witness, it is incumbent upon the inquiry officer to interrogate the charged official by placing all the incriminating materials collected during investigation before him and this provision is mandatory in nature.
24. The aforesaid discussion abundantly rules that it is incumbent upon the inquiry officer to interrogate the charged official under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and it is a mandatory provision to be followed during the course of inquiry. But certainly, it has been established from the perusal of the records and taking into consideration the pleadings exchanged across the Bar that the aforesaid provision was not adhered to in the instant case of the applicant. At this stage, it is also pertinent to refer to the Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2015 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India vide F. No. 11012/3/2015-Estt.A-III dealing with the subject "Importance of following the due process in disciplinary proceedings - reg.". The paragraph 3 of the said OM reads as under:
"3. Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, provides that, "the inquiring authority may, after the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.". This is a formal action required to be taken by the inquiry officer before closing the inquiry. It has been seen that many a times this is not formally recorded and the inquiry gets vitiated. It is imperative that the inquiry is conducted strictly in accordance with the procedures prescribed."
A perusal of the aforesaid OM further reveals that its copy was also sent to all the Ministries and departments including the C&AG of India, New Delhi.
Since the Government of India itself has issued the aforesaid OM directing all the departments to follow the provision of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 mentioning therein that this provision is imperative, thus, the respondents ought to have abide by RITU RAJ SINGH 17 | P a g e the OM and they cannot take plea that non-adhered to the provision of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 will not vitiate the inquiry proceedings particularly when the OM itself reveals that due to non interrogation of the charged official, the inquiry gets vitiated. In the present matter, the applicant has not examined himself as witness during inquiry, and he was not permitted to examine the witnesses in his defence, no effort has been made at the end of the inquiry officer to interrogate the applicant taking recourse to the provision of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 placing all the incriminating materials collected during the inquiry before him for his say. Thus, on this ground, in our considered view, the inquiry proceedings will be vitiated because this OM has been issued in the year 2015 whereas the judgment cited hereinabove are related to the year 1998 and the aforesaid OM of DoPT itself is deeming that Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is imperative.
25. The next point for consideration in this matter is that whether examination in chief of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have been recorded in the presence of the charged official or not and if not what would be the consequences. To analyze this fact, it would be in the fitness of things to refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr reported in 2024 INSC 873:
9. There is no dispute amongst the parties that penalty which has been imposed upon the appellant is a major penalty as defined in the Rules of 1999. In Rule 37 of the Rules of 1999, under the head of major penalty, the first Sub-Rule refers to withholding of increments with cumulative effect.
10. Therefore, Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 which prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalty would be applicable in the inquiry to be conducted against the appellant to bring home the charges imputed to him.
11. Rule 7 (vii)8 of the Rules of 1999, clearly stipulates that where a Government servant denies the charge, the Inquiry Officer shall proceed to call the witness proposed in the charge sheet and record their oral evidence in the presence of the charged Government servant who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine such witness. After recording the aforesaid evidence, the Inquiry Officer shall call and record the oral evidence which the charged Government servant desires in his written statement to be produced in his defence. Hence, recording of oral evidence in support of charges against Government servant is RITU RAJ SINGH 18 | P a g e a mandate under of Sub-rule (vii) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999, when the inquiry being conducted proposes imposition of a major penalty.
12. Learned counsel for the State was ad idem to the submissions of the appellant's counsel that no witness whatsoever was examined during the course of the inquiry proceedings. On a minute appraisal of the Inquiry Report, it is evident that other than referring to the documents pursuant to the so-called irregular transactions constituting the basis of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer failed to record the evidence of even a single witness in order to establish the charges against the appellant.
13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others9 and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another.
14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi11, this Court held that mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under: -
"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasijudicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.
......
19. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya case [(2006) 4 SCC 713 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 840] had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was held to have been based on no evidence. The appellant therein in the aforementioned situation filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissed. This Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was arrived at on evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This Court emphasised that a finding can be arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record. ..."
15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of the RITU RAJ SINGH 19 | P a g e Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha are as follows: -
"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents.
....
33. As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet."
16. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala14, this Court held that evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and the opportunity to cross-examine persons examined in preliminary inquiry is not given. Relevant extract thereof reads as under: -
"42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern Railway [AIR 1960 SC 992] , held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held.
43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 1854] a Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a similar view held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry may be held ex parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of the Government though usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought from the government servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the Government as to whether a regular inquiry must be held. The Court further held as under : (AIR p. 1862, para 12) "12. ... There must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries and it is only when the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one of the three major punishments indicated in Article 311 that the RITU RAJ SINGH 20 | P a g e government servant is entitled to the protection of that article [, nor prior to that]."
44. In Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC 299 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 152 : AIR 1997 SC 2148] this Court dealt with the issue and held as under:
"... a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and, whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice of (sic) nor, remains of no consequence."
45. In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice.
17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala, we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.
18. As a consequence, thereof, the High Court fell into grave error of law while interfering in the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal had quashed the order imposing penalty upon the appellant.
19. Resultantly, the impugned judgment dated 30th July, 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and the order dated 5th June, 2015 rendered by the Public Service Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh is restored. The appellant is entitled to all consequential benefits.
20. The monetary benefit flowing from this order shall be paid to the appellant within a period of two months from today, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.
21. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
As far as the examination of prosecution witness without recording the examination-in-chief as has been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, we have minutely perused the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant on this issue as well as judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satyendra Singh (supra) as has been quoted above. Certainly evidence collected / recorded during RITU RAJ SINGH 21 | P a g e preliminary enquiry / investigation could not be read as evidence as preliminary enquiry is generally conducted in an ex parte manner and the charged official is not associated with it and opportunity to cross examine the persons examined in preliminary inquiry is not given. What is the scope of preliminary inquiry has also been dealt with by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Ghosh (supra) as well as in the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah (supra). Similar view regarding scope of use of evidence collected during preliminary inquiry has also been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakar (supra). Now coming to the present matter, we have minutely gone through the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded during regular inquiry. Witness Saumya Parihar was examined on 03.12.2012 and the statement recorded during preliminary inquiry was placed before her. She specifically accepted the same certifying the same to be made by her. Inquiry Officer, Presenting Officer, Charged Official as well as Defence Assistant also perused the statement of this witness recorded during preliminary inquiry and made their signature on that statement. Thereafter, it was exhibited as P-13 and then defence assistant has cross examined the witness at length on behalf of the Charged Official. Similar procedure has been followed in respect of witness R P Dubey, Arun Kumar, Sachin Kapoor, Madhusudhan and statement of these witnesses recorded during preliminary inquiry were placed before them and they have accepted the same and adopting the same procedure, their statements were also placed before the presenting officer, defense assistant and charged official and they have made their signature on all the statements. The procedure adopted in respect of the aforesaid witnesses appears not to have been followed in respect witness Rama Shanker Sukh, Sameer Kumar Chandola, Sudhant Dutta, Sandeep Nandi. Although their statement recorded during preliminary inquiry were placed before these witnesses and they accepted the same and a lengthy cross examination has been made by the defence assistant from these witnesses. When witnesses RITU RAJ SINGH 22 | P a g e Govind Swaroop Sinha and Uma Shanker Singh were examined, procedure as adopted in respect of the witnesses Sachin Kapoor etc. was followed and a lengthy cross examination has also been made. If the ratio laid down in the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant and quoted hereinabove is taken into consideration, statement recorded during preliminary inquiry have been used by the inquiry officer confronting the same with the witnesses concerned who have accepted the same. The defence assistant have also cross examined the said witnesses making his signature on all the statements recorded during the preliminary inquiry and thus it can be held that statement recorded during the preliminary inquiry confronted with the witnesses concerned and signed by the Charged Official as well as defence assistant fulfilled the requirement of recording the examination-in-chief of witnesses concerned before the charged official. Thus, submissions raised on behalf of the applicant in this respect is not acceptable. Trial will not vitiate on this ground. It cannot be said that proper procedure prescribed regarding the evidence of the witnesses have not been followed.
26. As far as extending opportunity to the charged official for adducing the evidence is concerned, we have also gone through the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant as has been disclosed hereinabove minutely and also the application moved by the applicant to summon the witnesses. Certainly in the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, Courts have held that the charged official cannot be deprived from adducing the evidence rejecting the prayer made by him for summoning the witnesses for defence evidence. In the present matter, no proper opportunity to adduce the evidence has been allowed to the charged official and thus it shall be presumed that there is violation of the principle of natural justice and valuable right of the charged official to adduce defence evidence in his defence has been curtailed. Apart to this, in view of the OM quoted hereinabove, we have also observed that there is violation of the provision of Rule 14(18) of RITU RAJ SINGH 23 | P a g e CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which the aforesaid OM itself establishes as imperative. The said OM was issued in the year 2015. Although, the inquiry has been started prior to 2015, if the aforesaid OM is not taken into consideration then also, on analysis of entire facts and evidence we are of the view that a prejudice has occasioned to the applicant due to non interrogation under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 because he has also not been allowed to adduce oral evidence in his defence.
27. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, we are of the view that the inquiry proceedings, inquiry report as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority are vitiated due to non adherence to principle of natural justice as well as violation of the provision of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and thus we do not find any necessity to discuss other issues like 'amalgamation of punishment' etc. for the reason that OA has some substance and is liable to be allowed for the aforesaid reason itself.
28. Accordingly, the instant OA is allowed. The order dated 02.03.2015, 05.04.2013 and 11.02.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are hereby directed to refix the pay scale of the applicant as existed prior to the passing of the punishment orders. All the consequential benefits including the payment of arrears and granting of seniority shall accrue which is to be conferred upon the applicant within three months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, in case respondents deem fit, they may conduct de novo inquiry from the stage of Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and also affording the opportunity to the charged official to adduce evidence and examine witnesses in his defence and taking into consideration the observations made in this judgment.
29. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
24 | P a g e