Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Mr Vinay Kumar Prasad vs Msme on 22 April, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 042/00039/2025
HON'BLE MR RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Mr. Vinay Kumar Prasad
Aged about 51 years
Resident of Flat No. D-308
Prateek Laurel GH-01
Sector 120, Noida, UP-201307.
Presently working as General Manager (Tech.)
NSIC Sub-Branch Office
(A Government of India Enterprise)
Imphal, Manipur.
...Applicant
-AND-
1. The Union of India
Represented by the Secretary
To the Government of India
Ministry of MSME, Udyog Bhawan
Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110011.
2. The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.
Represented by its Chairman cum Managing Director
(CMD) having its office at NSIC Bhawan, NSIC Limited
Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020.
3. The Chairman cum Managing Director (CMD)
Appellate Authority, NSIC Ltd.
New Delhi office at NSIC Bhawan
NSIC Limited, Okhla Industrial Estate
New Delhi, 110020.
O.A. No/39/2025
PRASANNA Digitally signed by
PRASANNA
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY
2
4. The Director (P&M)/Disciplinary Authority
NSIC Ltd., NSIC Bhawan,
NSIC Limited, Okhla Industrial Estate
New Delhi, 110020.
Respondents
Present:
For applicant(s): Party in Person
For respondents: Shri G. Sarma
Date of Hearing: 07.04.2026 Date of Order: 22.04.2026
ORDER
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):
This O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
"8.i. To admit the present Application and call for the relevant records.
ii. To issue notice upon the respondents to show cause as to why the relief (s) sought for in the present application shall not be granted. iii. To set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2024 issued by the CMD/Appellate Authority, NSIC Ltd. (At Annexure-A/3) in the facts and circumstances of the present Application.
iv. To set aside the impugned Order dated 13-06- 2024 issued by the Director (P&M)/Disciplinary Authority, NSIC Ltd. (At Annexure-A/1) in the facts and circumstances of the present Application. v. To set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 08-02-2023 (At Annexure-A/8) issued by the Director (P&M)/Disciplinary Authority, NSIC Ltd. In O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 3 the facts and circumstances of the present Application.
vi. The costs of the Application.
vii. Grant any other relief (s) as the Hon'ble Tribunal
may deem fit and proper."
2. While the applicant was serving as General
Manager (Tech) in the National Small Industries Corporation, Technical Services Centre, Chennai, he was served with an Inter-Office Memorandum dated 28-11-022 issued by the Chief General Manager-SG (Tech), NSIC Ltd. (AT ANNEXURE- A/4) to which the applicant had duly submitted his Reply dated 22-12-2022 (AT ANNEXURE-A/5). Thereafter, the applicant was served with another Inter Office Memorandum dated 05-01-2023 issued by the Chief General Manager-SG (Tech). NSIC Ltd. (AT ANNEXURE-A/6) to which the applicant submitted his Reply dated 23-01-2023 (AT ANNEXURE-A/7).
However, without taking into consideration the replies submitted by the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority/ Director (P&M), NSIC Ltd. issued Show Cause Notice dated 08-02-2023 (AT ANNEXURE-A/8) against the applicant on similar issue against which 2 (two) Office Memorandums have O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 4 already been issued by the authority and to which the applicant had submitted his replies.
3. The applicant submitted his reply to the Show cause notice on 13-09-2023 (AT ANNEXURE-A/9). However, the same was left unanswered as has been done in the earlier case. Thereafter, the authorities issued Articles of Charges against the applicant by way of Office Memorandum dated 26-04- 2023 (AT ANNEXURE-A/10). Thereafter, Disciplinary Proceeding was vitiated with biasness, arbitrariness and malafide. As per the applicant, on several occasions, the Investigating Officer made wrong recording in the Daily Order sheets; further on one occasion, the Investigating Officer misbehaved with the applicant. Even though, the same was reported to the authority, but no action was taken up by the authority. That even though the applicant had submitted all his supporting documents. However, the Disciplinary Authority/ Director (P&M), NSIC Ltd. passed the impugned order dated 13-06- 2024 (AT ANNEXURE-A/1) thereby imposing Major penalty upon the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant submitted an Appeal dated 20-07-2024 (AT ANNEXURE-A/2) to O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 5 the Appellate Authority/ CDM, NSIC Ltd. however the same was rejected by its order dated 25-11-2024 (AT ANNEXURE- A/3).
4. Applicant appeared in person and submitted that he had no unauthorised photocopies of official documents. If any photocopies of documents were to be made, same was done from the centralised Xeroxing at First Floor of Head Office for parallel review by two C&P Officials within the mandate of C&P Cell. Scanning documents were done during COVID period as all the officials could not be present in the office at the relevant period of time and the mode of work was based on 'work from home'. He was not provided with a dedicated scanner at his office for a long time and he was forced to use his office mobile phone for scanning purposes during the said period. At the time of leaving the office, he was not provided with enough time to hand over his charge although he requested for some time to hand over his charge, documents, files and articles by the then CMD. Therefore, he had to leave the office in the same condition as he had left the earlier night. Even though, he had informed O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 6 the then CMD that C&P work is sensitive to audit and that he must be allowed to officially handover everything, however, the CMD denied the request and thus forcefully evict the applicant from his office immediately. He carried only his personal belongings consisting of steel tiffin with home eatables, reference text books, reference books, reference manuals (GE, ABB, Copper standard, etc), reference standard bid documents of Ministry of Finance, CVC handbook on procurement (personally owned by the applicant) and Labour Law Books.
5. Applicant submitted that he had made 26 complaints to the CVC which indicated rampant and wide range of malpractices existing in NSIC. However, the respondents have failed to take any action against the erring officers and issued one explanation call and finally issued Show Cause Notice. Respondents have also failed to consider the replies dated 22.12.2022, 23.01.2023 to the Explanation Notice dated 28.11.2022 and 05.01.2023 till date for the reasons best known to them. Without taking into consideration the Reply dated 13.03.2023 submitted by the O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 7 applicant to the Show Cause Notice dated 08.02.2023, the Disciplinary Authority/Director (P&M), National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., New Delhi issued Office Memorandum dated 26.04.2023 thereby proposed to hold an inquiry against the applicant under Rule 25 of the NSIC Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules, 2019 and framed Articles of Charges with the direction to submit a written statement of defence within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the OM dated 26.04.2023.
6. As per the applicant, he was not provided with an original copy of the Article of Charges, instead, he was provided with unsigned photocopy of the Article of Charges. Vide order dated 07.07.2023, the Disciplinary Authority appointed Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant. Accoridngly, Inquiry Officer started to enquire in to the Article of Charges. Being aggrieved with the daily order sheets of the Inquiry Officer, applicant submitted several representations before the appropriate authority raising the issue of the Inquiry Officer making records inaccurately. Due to misbehaviour of the Investing Officer, O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 8 applicant sent an E-mail dated 29.10.2023 to the CMD, NSIC Ltd. to change the Investigating Officer for the Disciplinary Enquiry. He also submitted representations to the DPM, NSIC on 24.09.2023 and 15.01.2024 for initiation of disciplinary proceeding in terms of OM of DOP&T OM dated 15.01.2014, which were never replied by the respondents. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 19.03.2024 to the disciplinary authority by holding the Article of Charges-I, II & III are proved with a copy of the same to the applicant on 26.03.2024. Being aggrieved with the Inquiry Officer's Report dated 19.03.2024, applicant submitted a representation dated 02.05.2024 to the Director (P&M)/Disciplinary Authority. However, without taking any action on the said representation, the Disciplinary Authority issued the impugned Order dated 13.06.2024 whereby major penalty has been imposed upon the applicant, against which, applicant preferred an appeal dated 20.07.2024 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2024.
7. As per the applicant, Inquiry Officer failed to make any specific allegations with regard to rude behaviour being O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 9 made by the applicant against the staffs and officials of NSIC Ltd. As per the applicant, the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 of the Disciplinary Authority as well as order of Appellate Authorities' dated 25.11.2024 have been issued without taking into consideration the whole factum of the case and with a biased and pre-meditated mind of the Inquiry Officer.
8. Respondents have filed their written statement and stated that while the applicant was functioning as General Manger (MIS), Head office, he was found to be indulged in making unauthorised photocopies and photographs of the official documents, marked/sent to him for processing. After getting so many complaints against the applicant, the authorities held an inquiry vide Office Memorandum dated 26.04.2023 and framed Article of Charges against the applicant (Annexure-R/6). He was also given opportunity to file written statement. Thereafter, respondents appointed Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant vide order dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure-R/7). The Inquiry Officer upon appreciation of evidence and O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 10 documents has categorically held the charges levelled against the applicant as proved. A copy of the inquiry report dated 19.03.2024 was served upon the applicant and he was given opportunity to file representation on the inquiry report within 15 days. Accordingly, applicant filed one representation dated 02.05.2024 wherein applicant raised some allegations against the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority carefully discussed the issues raised by the applicant and found the allegations were baseless, false and motivated and rejected and accordingly, vide Order dated 13.06.2024 decided to impose major penalty of "reduction of his pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years; he shall not earn increments of pay during such period and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay" on the applicant (Annexure-A/10).
9. Respondents stated that applicant filed an appeal challenging the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 13.06.2024. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure-R/11) confirmed the penalty already O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 11 imposed upon the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 13.06.2024. As per the respondents, Disciplinary Proceeding was conducted as per the prescribed rule and the allegations raised by the applicant against the Inquiry Officer are baseless. In this regard, the authority also carefully examined the proceedings including applicant's e-mail dated 29.10.2023 requesting the authority to change Inquiry Officer. The request of the applicant for changing the Inquiry Officer and allegations brought against the Inquiry Officer was also rejected by the respondent authority vide order dated 15.11.2023.
10. We have heard the applicant in Person and Shri G. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
11. After hearing the arguments, both parties were directed to file their respective written notes of arguments, which, they have filed accordingly.
12. It is noted that the respondents failed to take into consideration the email of the applicant dated 30.08.2023 with reasoned order. Respondents also have failed to take O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 12 any action erring officers on the basis of 26 complaints made by the applicant to the CVC. Applicant also made representation against the Inquiry Officer that he is biased and misbehaved with the applicant. The respondents have also failed to consider the replies of the applicant dated 22.12.2022 and 23.01.2023 to the Explanation Notice dated 28.11.2022 and 05.01.2023. However, without taking into the consideration the reply dated 13.03.2023, the Disciplinary Authority vide OM dated 26.04.2023 had proposed to hold an inquiry against the applicant and framed Articles of Charges. Accordingly, Inquiry Officer started enquiry into the matter and by holding the Article of Charges 'proved' had submitted his report dated 19.03.2024 to the Disciplinary Authority. Against the Inquiry Report dated 19.03.2024, applicant submitted a representation dated 02.05.2024 to the Disciplinary Authority. However, without taking any action on the said representation, the Disciplinary Authority had issued the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 (Annexure-A/1) by imposing a major penalty of 'reduction of his pay by two stages in the time scale of pay for a period of O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 13 three years; he shall not earn increments of pay during such period and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay" upon the applicant. Against the said order, applicant preferred an appeal dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure-A/2) before the Appellate Authority which was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2024 by confirming the penalty already imposed upon the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority.
13. As per the learned counsel for the applicant, the Inquiry Officer failed to make any specific allegations with regard to rude behaviour being made by the applicant against the staffs and officials. The impugned Order dated 13.06.2024 of Disciplinary Authority as well as Order dated 25.11.2024 of the Appellate Authority were issued without taking into consideration the whole factum of the case and with a biased and pre-meditated mind of the Inquiry Officer.
14. The Inquiry Officer has tempered with the documents which is a part of the inquiry. Later on, original document which was placed by the applicant was taken on O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 14 record. Inquiry was completed in January 2024 and the applicant, timely made representations to the Inquiry Officer.
15. The main allegation of the applicant is that many of the documents were not verified by the Inquiry Officer from Originals even after repeated requests made by the applicant. Further, some of the documents were not supplied in Charge sheet, which was given only during verification and that the Inquiry Officer did not record that those documents were not in the Charge sheet and some documents were illegible in Charge sheet and many relevant defence documents were denied in the name of IO irrelevancy.
15. From the above, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant is not satisfied with the enquiry and his witnesses have not been properly examined. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, quash the impugned Orders dated 13.06.2024 as well as 25.11.2024 issued by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority (Annexure-A/1 & A/3) respectively and direct the respondents to issue a fresh O.A. No/39/2025 PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARYBASUMATARY 15 Charge-sheet bearing same charges and new Inquiry Officer be appointed and that would complete the whole inquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
16. O.A. stands partly allowed.
17. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KUMAR) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
PB
O.A. No/39/2025
PRASANNA Digitally signed by
PRASANNA
BASUMATARYBASUMATARY