Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Parmeshwar Hariji Rathod vs M/O Finance on 10 June, 2025
1 OA No.441/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.441 OF 2014
Dated this Monday, the 09th day of June, 2025
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. SHRI KRISHNA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MR. UMESH GAJANKUSH, MEMBER (J)
Parmeshwar Hariji Rathod, Aged 53 years,
Residing at 1703, Delight City of Joy,
A.C.C. Compound, J.D.S. Road, Mulund (W),
Mumbai 400 080.
Official Address - Superintendent, C. Ex.,
Mumbai -1, Commissionerate. - Applicant
(By Advocate Shri R.K.Mendadkar)
Versus
1. Union of India, Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Excise),
6th Floor, HUDCO Vishala Bldg. Bhikaji Kama Palace,
New Delhi - 66.
2. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 1,
New Central Excise Bldg., 115, M.K.Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai 400 020. - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.K.Rajpurohit)
Reserved on 23.01.2025
Pronounced on 09.06.2025
ORDER
Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 The present Original Application has been by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by seeking the following reliefs :2 OA No.441/2014
"8(a). That this Hon'ble tribunal be pleased to call for the Records and Proceedings of the case governing impugned orders dated 20.10.2009 passed by the Respondent No.2 Commissioner and order dated 09.09.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 and after examining its legality, validity and propriety be pleased to quash and set aside the same with further directions to reinstate the applicant on the post of Superintendent with all consequences including back wages.
8(b). For such and other relief's as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was granted Caste Certificate by the Public Empowered Officer i.e. Executive Magistrate, Jintur on 17.05.1983 in the prescribed format certifying that applicant belongs to Banjara Caste. On the basis of the aforesaid certificate, the applicant applied to the Staff Selection Commission for the Auditors / Jr. Accttts. / UDC's examinations, 1982.
2(a). It is stated that since there was no column for Vimukta Jati, he ticked in the column meant for "Do you belong to Scheduled Tribe"
as "Yes". It is further stated that after successful in the written examination as well as interview and after undergoing entire rigmarole of selection, the applicant came to be selected and consequently appointed on the post of UDC. The Caste Certificate Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta Khushboo DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= dated 17.05.1983 has thus underwent through the strict and 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 stringent eyes of Selection Board as well as the Appointing Authority.3 OA No.441/2014
2(b). It is further stated that thereafter, the applicant was promoted from time to time. However, a charge-sheet was issued in the month of May, 2008 alleging that the applicant failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and has consequently contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) and (ii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
2(c). Thereafter, Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and during the course of the Departmental Enquiry, the applicant has submitted written brief of submission on 22.10.2008 and the Presenting Officer has also submitted his written brief.
Thereafter, enquiry report was submitted on 01.11.2008 to the respondent No.2 concluding that the Article of Charge in Annexure 1 in the Charge Memorandum dated 14.05.2008 is sustained and the same is proved.
2(d). It is stated that the copy of enquiry report along with second stage opinion rendered by the Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise was made available to the applicant by Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= the respondent No.2vide letter dated 08.06.2009 with a direction to 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 the applicant to submit his representation on the same within 15 days of the receipt of the said letter failing which it would be construed that the applicant has nothing to say in his defence and 4 OA No.441/2014 the case will be decided on the basis of evidence on record. Before applicant proceeds to file his reply, he addressed a letter dated 23.06.2009 with a prayer for copies of letter issued to the Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi under which department has sought for first stage and second stage advice.
2(e). In response to the said letter dated 23.06.2009, the Joint Commissioner (VIG) has addressed a letter dated 03.07.2009 to the applicant informing that there is no provision under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to furnish a copy of letters issued to the Directorate General of Vigilance under which department has sought for first stage advice and second stage advice. Further, a letter dated 21.07.2009 was submitted with a prayer for furnishing attested copies of the various documents has set out in the said letter. In response to the aforesaid letter, Joint Commissioner (P&V) replied to the applicant that his request for said documents has already been replied vide letter dated 13.03.2009 and directed the applicant to submit his written brief on the IO's report and the second stage advice within ten days from the receipt of the said letter.
Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 2(f). Thereafter, again letter dated 21.08.2009 was submitted to the 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 respondent No.2 that the charges levelled against the applicant are of very serious nature and likely to affect his bread and butter and, therefore, sixty days' time was sought for filing written submission.5 OA No.441/2014
However, without waiting for any submissions from the applicant and / or without informing whether the said authority has refused his request, impugned order dated 20.10.2009 was passed imposing punishment of dismissal from service.
2(g). Challenging the aforesaid order, OA No.673/2009 was filed before this Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2009 observing that the applicant may prefer an appeal.
Thereafter, Exhaustive Appeal dated 04.12.2009 was filed before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2013.
2(h). Both the aforesaid orders are challenged by the applicant on the ground that the same have been passed without hearing the applicant, thus, violated the principles of natural justice and fair play.
It is further submitted that by letter dated 21.08.2009, the applicant had prayed for sixty days' time to file his submission on the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as second stage advice rendered by the Directorate General of Vigilance. However, without considering the said prayer in proper perspective, the impugned punishment Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 2(i). Specific ground has been taken by the applicant along with other ground that the respondent No.2, Commissioner has failed to appreciate that second stage advice rendered by the Directorate 6 OA No.441/2014 General of Vigilance is not binding on the respondents. Therefore, on the basis of facts and grounds mentioned in the Original Application, the applicant has prayed for quashment of the impugned orders with consequential benefits.
3. After notice, the official respondents have filed their reply and justified the impugned orders. It is stated that the very appointment of the applicant is null and void and non-est as it is based on false information furnished by the applicant. The Caste Certificate dated 17.05.1983 issued to the applicant by the Executive Magistrate and submitted by the applicant while applying to the Staff Selection Commission for the Auditors / Jr. Acctts. / UDC's Examination, 1982 categorically certifies that the applicant belongs to Banjara Caste which is recognized as Vimukta Jati. By his own admission, the applicant has ticked in the column meant for "Do you belong to Scheduled Tribe" as "Yes", since, there was no column for Vimukta Jati in the said application form. This clearly indicates that the applicant while applying for the said examination was fully aware that he belonged to 'Vimukta Jati'. The absence of the category of Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 'Vimukta Jati' in the application form in itself clearly indicates that the 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 candidates belonging to 'Vimukt Jati' were not eligible to be considered as Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe.7 OA No.441/2014
3(a). Further, in no terms can a 'Vimukta Jati' be equated with a Scheduled Tribe. The said Application Form was duly signed by the applicant confirming that he had carefully read the conditions of the eligibility advertised and he satisfied the conditions for admission to the examination, and also that the statement made in the Application Form by him are true to the best of his knowledge. Hence, the misconduct on the part of the applicant amounted to willful fraud with an intention to cheat the Selection Board as well as the Appointing Authority.
3(b). In respect of verification of the Caste Certificate of the applicant by the Selection Board, there appears to be some lacunae in the verification procedure / process of the Caste Certificate of the applicant undertaken by the Appointing Authority. Had it not been for the lacunae, the applicant's appointment itself would have been rejected at the initial stage itself. The improper verification of the Caste Certificate of the appellant by the Departmental Officers does not absolve the applicant of his reprehensible conduct.
3(c). It is further submitted that as per the provision of Rule 15 of Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the applicant was entitled for only 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 fifteen days to file his written submission on the Enquiry Report, second stage advice. It is stated that the applicant was given sufficient and reasonable opportunity to defend his case on merits.8 OA No.441/2014
Yet the applicant did not submit his written submissions and instead, the applicant vide his letter dated 21.08.2009 requested for sixty days' time to file his written submission on the ground that his legal advisor was out of town and was expected to return only in the 3rd week of September, 2009. The Disciplinary Authority has, thus, rightly observed that the applicant has been indulging in dilatory tactics with willful intent to cause delay in deciding the charge sheet issued to him and rightly held that there is no need to grant any further time or opportunity to the applicant. Therefore, on the basis of the reply, the official respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed by the applicant reiterating and elaborating his stand and also placing on record a copies of Attestation Form and copies of Service Book.
5. Thereafter, sur-rejoinder was also filed by the respondents reiterating and elaborating the stand taken in their reply.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents available on record.
Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
7. Shri R.K.Mendadkar, learned counsel for the applicant 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 vehemently argued that the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the charge-sheet was issued to the applicant based upon the complaints 9 OA No.441/2014 dated 19.10.2007, whereas, the applicant was appointed to the post of UDC dated 24.08.1983. Prior to the aforesaid complaint, the applicant was promoted time to time.
7(a). It is vehemently argued that looking to the charge-sheet itself that there is no allegation in respect of the fake and forged Caste Certificate. It is contended that during the course of enquiry, after submission of the Enquiry Report by the Enquiry Officer, through various letters, applicant sought some relevant information / documents, however, without supplying the same and without providing a reasonable opportunity to submit representation to the Enquiry Report, the impugned punishment order dated 20.10.2009 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice.
7(b). It is further submitted that the impugned dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority under the dictate and advice of Additional Commissioner Vigilance and on the basis of second stage advice, whereas, as per the settled position of law, the second stage advice is not binding upon the Disciplinary Authority. Since, in the Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= present case, the impugned punishment order is solely based on the 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 advice and dictate of the Additional Vigilance Commissioner and, therefore, the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law.10 OA No.441/2014
7(c). To support this contention, the applicant has relied upon the letter dated 29.05.2009 which was submitted by the applicant along with Affidavit dated 20.12.2024 and demonstrated that in the second stage advice, it has been categorically advised "stiff major penalty".
Based upon the aforesaid advice, the impugned punishment order has been passed.
7(d). On merits, it is submitted that based upon the Caste Certificate dated 17.05.1983, since there was no column for the Vimukta Jati and, therefore, under bona fide impression, the applicant has put right mark against the category ST and the said certificate was submitted for verification by the Recruiting Agency as well as by the Appointing Authority at the time of appointment. Further, the applicant was promoted from time to time. Under these circumstances, after lapse of more than twenty five years, initiation of enquiry based upon the complaint and passing of the impugned punishment order is unfair and unjust that too when there is unblemished service record of the applicant. It is further contended that there is no charge that the applicant has produced any fake or Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= forged Caste Certificate. Even otherwise, the said certificate was 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 not the subject matter of any scrutiny by or before the Competent Authority as per the rules. Only on the basis of complaint, the charge-sheet was issued and the impugned punishment order has 11 OA No.441/2014 been passed.
7(e). It is further contended that challenging the punishment order, a detailed appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority, in which, a specific ground of second stage enquiry along with other grounds were raised. However, while passing the appellate order dated 09.08.2019, the Appellate Authority rejected the same by unreasoned and unspeaking order. Looking to the appellate order dated 09.09.2019, it is also clear that while deciding the appeal, advice of UPSC was sought and, thereafter, based upon the advice of UPSC, the order of punishment was affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
7(f). It is vehemently contended that looking to the appellate order, it is clear that there is no whisper in respect of the consideration of the ground of second stage advice by the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the impugned appeal order is also unsustainable in law.
to support the aforesaid contention of the second stage advice, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.7038/2022 in Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= the case of Dattatray Bajrang Naik Vs. Union of India and others 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 decided on 10.04.2024.
8. On the other hand, Shri N.K.Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondents, with same vehemence supported the impugned order 12 OA No.441/2014 of punishment and Appellate Authority. It is contended that there is limited scope of interference by this Tribunal under the powers of judicial review. It is submitted that during the course of enquiry, due, proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to the applicant.
8(a). It is contended that there is no dispute that the applicant belongs to Banjara Caste which is not covered under the Scheduled Tribe category. Under these circumstances, when the said facts was brought to the notice of the Competent Authority by way of complaint, the appropriate proceedings were initiated, which culminated in the order of dismissal.
8(b). It is also contended that the Appellate Authority has also taken note of the grounds raised by the applicant. It is submitted that the contention of the applicant that the impugned punishment order has been passed only on the advice and dictate of the Chief Vigilance Officer is not true. In fact, the Disciplinary Authority has applied independent mind and based upon proceedings of enquiry and Enquiry Report, appropriate punishment order has been passed Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= which needs no interference.
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 8(c). During the course of the arguments, to support his argument, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank 13 OA No.441/2014 of India Vs. K.V.Vishwanath reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 667 decided on 20.05.2022.
9. After hearing both the learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, the principle question which requires consideration by this Tribunal is (a) whether the impugned punishment order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority at the dictate and advice of the Vigilance Commissioner without applying independent mind and if so, whether such order is sustainable in the eyes of law ? (b) whether the impugned appellate order dated 09.09.2013 is non-speaking, unreasoned and sustainable or not ?
10. To appreciate aforesaid points, at the first instance, when we look into appellate order dated 09.09.2013, it clearly appears that after recording the brief facts, it is observed that the Appellate Authority referred the matter to UPSC for their advice which was received on 10.09.2012. Taking note of the aforesaid advice, it was observed by the Appellate Authority that the advice of Commission is appropriate, fair and acceptable with reference to the facts of the case. However, looking to the appellate order, there is no mention Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= or discussion in respect of the ground taken in the second stage 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 advice in appeal memo and other grounds.
11. At this stage, it is relevant here to reproduce paragraphs Nos.32 to 48 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay 14 OA No.441/2014 in the case of Dattatray Bajrang Naik (supra) as under :
"32. To examine the first issue as culled out above, we may refer to the provisions of Rule 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Rule 14(23) of the said Rules mandates that after conclusion of the inquiry a report shall be prepared which shall be forwarded to the disciplinary authority along with the records of inquiry. Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 provides for action on the inquiry report. The action under Rule 15 on the inquiry report has to be finally taken by the disciplinary authority. Rule 15(3)(a) provides that in every case where it is necessary to consult Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the UPSC), the disciplinary authority shall forward a copy of the inquiry report along with his comments on the representation of the delinquent employee for the advice of the UPSC. Rule 15(3)(b) requires that the disciplinary authority shall forward the advice of the UPSC to the Government servant requiring him to submit his written representation and thereafter under sub Rule (5) of Rule 15, the disciplinary authority has to form an opinion whether the charged officer is to be inflicted with penalty and accordingly, he shall make an order imposing such penalty. Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 is quoted hereunder:
"15. ACTION ON INQUIRY REPORT:
(1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be.
(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the Disciplinary Authority or where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Inquiring Authority on any article of charge to the Mittal Gupta Government Servant who shall be required to submit, if Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant.15 OA No.441/2014
(3) (a) In every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded to the Commission for its advice:
(i) a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiring Authority on any article of charge;
(ii) comments of Disciplinary Authority on the representation of the Government servant on the Inquiry report and disagreement note, if any and all the case records of the inquiry proceedings.
(b) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission received under clause (a) to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, on the advice of the Commission.
(4) The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation under sub-rule (2) and/or clause (b) of subrule (3), if any, submitted by the Government servant and record its findings before proceeding further in the matter as specified in sub-rules (5) and (6).
(5) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to
(iv) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty.
(6) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed."
33. A perusal of Rule 15 as quoted above reveals that the ultimate authority for imposing penalty against a charged officer is the disciplinary authority who in certain cases may seek 16 OA No.441/2014 consultation with the UPSC and form its opinion on consideration of the representation to be made by the charged officer in respect of the advice tendered by the UPSC and taking into consideration the entire material available in the record of the disciplinary proceedings. It is, thus, apparent that the Rules do not require any consultation with or advice from the Central Vigilance Officer of the Department.
34. At this juncture, we may refer to a document tendered by the learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India which appears to have been downloaded from the website of Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs and gives certain information about the Directorate General of Vigilance, Indirect Taxes and Customs. The said document mentions certain functions and duties of the Directorate General of Vigilance which, inter alia;
includes, (a) to get an inquiry conducted into various complaints received from public, (b) to process the investigation received from its Zonal Units and (c) to obtain Central Vigilance Commission / Central Vigilance Officer's first stage advice for further action where charged officers under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs are involved. It also provides that Zonal units of the Directorate General of the department may also assist the disciplinary authority in disciplinary and prosecution matters relating to Group-A officers under Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs in consultation with Central Vigilance Commission. No other rule or circular or regulation was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel representing either of the parties.
35. Accordingly, what we could gather about the functions and duties of the Directorate General of Vigilance Department in the matters of disciplinary action against the officers under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs is that the Director General of Vigilance of the Department is to assist the disciplinary authority in disciplinary matters relating to Group-A officers under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs.
36. Having regard to Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the document submitted by learned Counsel representing Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= the Union of India which describes the functions of Directorate General of Vigilance of the Department, what we unambiguously 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 conclude is that the only function assigned to the Directorate General, Vigilance is to assist the disciplinary authority in the matters concerning Group-A officers of the Department. We also conclude that there does not appear to be any mandate for the disciplinary authority to consult or seek advice of the Directorate General of Vigilance of the Department for forming an opinion 17 OA No.441/2014 about the punishment or quantum of punishment to be inflicted upon the charged officer. The authority to inflict punishment is vested in the disciplinary authority under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and accordingly, the disciplinary authority has to apply its independent mind for arriving at a conclusion regarding the punishment or quantum of punishment to be imposed against a charged officer in case charges are found to be proved.
37. To delve into the issue as to whether advice or direction of Vigilance Directorate of the department is binding on the disciplinary authority we find it appropriate to first reflect upon the requirement of consultation with UPSC in the matter of disciplinary action against the officers and also on the issue as to whether the advice tendered by the UPSC is binding.
38. Under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the Government servants have been provided certain protections and one of the protections provided to the Government servants under this constitutional provision is that no Government servant shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Thus, under the scheme of Article 311 it is either the appointing authority or an authority higher in rank to the appointing authority which is empowered to inflict either of the major penalties of dismissal or removal from service, that too, only after an inquiry in which the employee concerned has been informed of the charges and is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges.
39. Article 320 of the Constitution of India provides for the functions of the UPSC. Sub Article 3(c) of Article 320 provides that the UPSC shall be consulted on all the disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the State Government in civil capacity. Article 320(3)(c) is quoted hereinbelow:
"Article 320(3)(c):
Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta 320 : Functions of Public Service Commissions:
Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 (3) The Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted -
(a) .................18 OA No.441/2014
(b) .................
(c) on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters;"
40. What is the nature of consultation in respect of disciplinary matters with UPSC has been settled long ago by a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, 1957 SCC Online SC 4, where it has been held that the opinion of the UPSC is not binding upon the disciplinary authority. Discussing the interface between Article 311 and 320 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Article 311 is not in any way controlled by the provisions of Chapter II of Part XIV of the Constitution with particular reference to Article 320. Paragraph 8 and 9 of the report in the case of Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (supra) is quoted hereunder:
"8. Secondly, it is clear that the requirement of the consultation with the Commission does not extend to making the advice of the Commission on those matters, binding on the Government. Of course, the Government, when it consults the Commission on matters like these, does it not by way of a mere formality, but with a view to getting proper assistance in assessing the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and of the suitability and adequacy of the penalty proposed to be imposed. If the opinion of the Commission were binding on the Government, it may have been argued with greater force that non-compliance with the rule for consultation would have been fatal to the validity of the order proposed to be passed against a public servant. In the absence of such a binding character, it is difficult to see how noncompliance with the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) could have the effect of nullifying the final order passed by the Government.
Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
9. Thirdly, Article 320 or the other articles in Chapter II of Part XIV of the Constitution, deal with the constitution of 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 the Commission and appointment and removal of the Chairman or other members of the Commission and their terms of service as also their duties and functions. Chapter II deals with the relation between Government and the Commission but not between the Commission and a public servant. Chapter II containing Article 320, 19 OA No.441/2014 does not, in terms, confer any rights or privileges on an individual public servant, nor any constitutional guarantee of the nature contained in Chapter I of that Part, particularly Article 311. Article 311, therefore, is not, in any way, controlled by the provisions of Chapter II of Part XIV, with particular reference to Article 320."
41. The principle that the appointing authority is not bound by the advice of UPSC in terms of the provisions contained in Article 320 of the Constitution of India, has been reiterated in A. N. D'Silva Vs. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1130, where it has been observed that "the President is by Article 320 of the Constitution required to consult the UPSC (except in certain cases, which are not material) but the President is not bound by the advice of the UPSC.
42. The Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (supra) has been relied on and quoted with approval by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various later judgments. One such reference in this regard may be had to Indian Administrative Services (S.C.S.) Association, U.P. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1993 Supp (1) SCC 730. In the said case, the law propounded by the Supreme Court in the Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (supra) has been referred to and it has further been observed that Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (supra) did not extend the role of consultation to making the advice of the UPSC to be binding on the Government. Paragraph 17 of the judgment in the case of Indian Administrative Services (S.C.S.) Association, U.P. is extracted hereinbelow:
"17. In State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava [1958 SCR 533, 542 : AIR 1957 SC 912 : (1958) 2 LLJ 273] the word "consultation" in Article 320 of the Constitution of India was considered by a Constitution Bench. It was held that the word "consultation" did not envisage mandatory character for consultation, but the Constitution-makers allowed the discretion to the appointing authority to consult the Public Service Commission. But the executive Government cannot completely ignore the existence of Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= the Public Service Commission or pick up and choose cases in which it may or may not be consulted. However, 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 prior consultation was held to be not mandatory for removal of a Government servant as the Central Government has not been tied down by the advice of the UPSC. This Court did not extend the rule of consultation to making the advice of the Commission on those matters binding on the Government. In the absence of a binding 20 OA No.441/2014 character, this Court held that non-compliance of Article 320(3)(c) would not have the affect of nullifying the final order passed by the Government of removal of the Government servant from service. In U.R. Bhatt v. Union of India [AIR 1962 SC 1344 : (1962) 1 LLJ 656] this Court held that the absence of consultation of the Public Service Commission or any irregularity in consultation under Article 320 does not affect the ultimate decision taken by the authority under Article 311 of the Constitution. In Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. [(1969) 2 SCC 240 : (1970) 1 SCR 472] the same view was reiterated. In N. Raghavendra Rao v. Dy. Commissioner [(1964) 7 SCR 549 : AIR 1965 SC 136] construing the words "prior approval" of the Central Government in the proviso to Section 115(7) of S.R. Act of varying the conditions of service the Constitution Bench held that "prior approval"
would include a general approval to the variation in the conditions of service within certain limits, indicated by the Central Government. Same view was reiterated by another Constitution Bench in Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India [(1975) 3 SCC 76 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 454 : (1975) 1 SCR 449, 469-471]"
43. In the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. T. V. Patel, (2007) 4 SCC 785, a question arose as to whether supply of copy of advice tendered by UPSC to the delinquent employee while imposing penalty is necessary or not. Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (supra) held that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) are not mandatory and as such do not confer any right on the public servant so that the absence of consultation or any irregularity in the consultation process or in furnishing a copy of advice tendered by the UPSC does not afford the delinquent servant a cause of action in any court of law. It is, however, necessary to refer to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. R. P. Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 340, where T.V. Patel (supra) has been held to be per incuriam to the extent T.V. Patel (supra) held that the advice tendered by the UPSC was not necessary to be served upon the Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= delinquent officer before passing the order of punishment, but, the principle as enunciated by the Constitution Bench judgment 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 in the case of Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (supra) remains unaffected by the pronouncement in R. P. Singh (supra).
44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is well settled that the advice tendered by the UPSC in relation to the disciplinary matters involving a Central Government employee under Article 21 OA No.441/2014 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India is not binding on the disciplinary authority; neither consultation with the UPSC is mandatory.
45. We have already noticed above that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 do not envisage any consultation with or seeking the advice of the Central Vigilance Officer/Directorate General of Vigilance of the Department concerned. In absence of any such mandate of either consultation with or advice from the Director General of Vigilance, it is difficult to hold that in case any such advice is tendered in the matters relating to the disciplinary action against the officers of the Central Government, such advice will be binding on the disciplinary authority for the reason that though CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provide for seeking consultation from UPSC, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments held that such consultation with and advice of UPSC is not binding. Once despite existence of provision of consultation with UPSC in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the advice of UPSC in disciplinary matters is not binding, to hold that such advice tendered by the Director General of Vigilance will be binding is extremely difficult for the reason that no such provision regarding consultation even exists in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
46. To ascertain as to whether in the matter of inflicting punishment against a delinquent officer, the advice tendered by vigilance organization such a Chief Vigilance Commission or the Directorate General of Vigilance of any Department is binding or not, reference may be had to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi Vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal and Anr., (1991) 3 SCC 219. In this case, the relevant statutory regulations governing disciplinary matters left it to the discretion of the punishing authority to inflict appropriate punishment having regard to the gravity of misconduct proved in a particular case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such discretion has been completely fettered by the direction issued by the Ministry of Finance where the Bank was told that the punishment advised by the Central Vigilance Commission in every case of disciplinary proceedings Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= should be strictly adhered to and not to be altered without prior concurrence of the Central Vigilance Commission and the 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Ministry of Finance. Expressing surprise on such directives issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Bank's consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission in every case was not mandatory and even if the Bank had made a self-imposed rule to consult with the Central Vigilance 22 OA No.441/2014 Commission in every disciplinary matter, it does not make the Commission's advice binding on the punishing authority. The Apex Court in Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi (supra) referred to A. N. D'Silva (supra) and followed the view expressed therein that the Commission's function is purely advisory, as it is not an appellate authority over the inquiry officer or the disciplinary authority and further that the advice tendered by the Commission is not binding on the Bank or the punishing authority. Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that it is not obligatory on the punishing authority to accept the advice of the Chief Vigilance Commission. Paragraph 16 and 17 of the report in the case of Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi (supra) are extracted hereinbelow:
"16. The power of the punishing authorities in departmental proceedings is regulated by the statutory Regulations. Regulation 4 merely prescribes diverse punishment which may be imposed upon delinquent officers. Regulation 4 does not provide specific punishments for different misdemeanours except classifying the punishments as minor or major. Regulations leave it to the discretion of the punishing authority to select the appropriate punishment having regard to the gravity of the misconduct proved in the case. Under Regulation 17, the appellate authority may pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or completely setting aside the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. He has also power to express his own views on the merits of the matter and impose any appropriate punishment on the delinquent officer. It is quasi-judicial power and is unrestricted. But it has been completely fettered by the direction issued by the Ministry of Finance. The Bank has been told that the punishment advised by the Central Vigilance Commission in every case of disciplinary proceedings should be strictly adhered to and not to be altered without prior concurrence of the Central Vigilance Commission and the Ministry of Finance.
17. We are indeed surprised to see the impugned Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= directive issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division). Firstly, under the 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Regulations, the Bank's consultation with Central Vigilance Commission in every case is not mandatory. Regulation 20 provides that the Bank shall consult the Central Vigilance Commission wherever necessary, in respect of all disciplinary cases having a vigilance angle. Even if the Bank has made a self-imposed rule to 23 OA No.441/2014 consult the Central Vigilance Commission in every disciplinary matter, it does not make the Commission's advice binding on the punishing authority. In this context, reference may be made to Article 320(3) of the Constitution. Article 320(3) like Regulation 20 with which we are concerned provides that the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted on all disciplinary matters affecting a civil servant including memorials or petitions relating to such matters. This Court in A.N. D'Silva v. Union of India [1962 Supp 1 SCR 968 : AIR 1962 SC 1130] has expressed the view that the Commission's function is purely advisory. It is not an appellate authority over the inquiry officer or the disciplinary authority. The advice tendered by the Commission is not binding on the government. Similarly, in the present case, the advice tendered by the Central Vigilance Commission is not binding on the Bank or the punishing authority. It is not obligatory upon the punishing authority to accept the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission."
47. The judgment in the case of Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (supra) was again relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. & Anr. Vs. Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal, (1997) 3 SCC 505, where the discipline and appeal rules provided that before taking a decision, the Government shall consult Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance on Manbodhan Lal Srivastava (supra) clearly observed that the word "shall" appearing in the relevant rule does not make the Rule mandatory and consequently non- consultation with Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission would not render the order of removal of an employee concerned as illegal.
48. Some what similar matter came up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Chandra Jain Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (1997) 11 SCC 444, where following the law laid down in Nagaraj Shivarao Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= Karjagi (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the disciplinary authority to take decision in the matter of penalty on the basis 870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 that the recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner is not binding."24 OA No.441/2014
12. Taking note of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Dattatray Bajrang Naik (supra) and looking to the impugned appellate order dated 09.09.2013, it is clear that the Appellate Authority was required to consider the grounds taken by the applicant while passing the appellate order in terms of parameters laid down in Rule 27 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, since we are proposing to remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority for consideration of the appeal afresh in accordance with law and, therefore, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to take into account the point No.(a) also while deciding the appeal.
14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the impugned Appellate Authority's order dated 09.09.2013 is quashed. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15. The OA is partly allowed to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs.
Khushboo Digitally signed by Khushboo Mittal Gupta DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=6dbe5c2d6885491895b4fb8ef3642a0b, Phone=8985c11fad2960cfbb159f98c2764347c7a4ffbc50d436d4fe5701484c759b92, PostalCode=411060, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=
16. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
870759ef2f1952335c4269bf3698e2204e6521bc46faf0d3fefceadf0c12c639, CN= Khushboo Mittal Gupta Mittal Gupta Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.11 14:36:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 (UMESH GAJANKUSH) (SHRI KRISHNA) MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A) kmg*