Sh Rajkumar Jatiya vs Steel Authority Of India on 18 February, 2026

[Cites 25, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Sh Rajkumar Jatiya vs Steel Authority Of India on 18 February, 2026

                                                                                          1                   O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015
Item 23 (C-3)

                                                                                       CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                                                                                          PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

                                                                                                  O.A. No. 697/2015
                                                                                                 with OA No. 700/2015

                                                                                                                    Reserved on : 04.02.2026
                                                                                                                 Pronounced on : 18.02.2026

   Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
   Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

   (1)                                                                          O.A. No. 697/2015 :

   Sh. Syed Mohd Razi Age-32 Yrs.
   S/o. Sh. Syed Sibtey Razi.
   Ex-Junior Manager, CMO,
   R/o-102/1 Shahjahanabad society,
   Sector-11, Plot-1, Dwarka,
   New Delhi-110 075                                                                                                         ......Applicant

   (By Advocates: Mr. Sachin Chauhan with Ms. Ridhi Dua)

                                                                                        Versus

   1. Union of India,
      The Secretary, Ministry of Steel,
      Udhyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011.

   2. Steel Authority of India Limited
      Through its Chairman,
      SAIL, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
      New Delhi-110 003.

   3. The Sr. Manager (P-OD),
      Steel Authority of India Limited,
      Central Marketing Organisation,
      Ispat Bhavan, 40, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
      Kolkata-700071

   4. The Director (Commercial),
      Steel Authority of India Limited,
      Central Marketing Organisation,
      Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road,
      New Delhi l10 003                                                                                                  ......Respondents

   (By Advocate : Mr. Archit Mishra with Mr. Digvijay Rai for SAIL)


   (2)                                                                          OA No. 700/2015 :

   Sh. Raj Kumar Jatiya, Age-33 Yrs.,
   S/o Dr. S.N. Jatiya, Ex-Junior Manager, CMO,
   R/o-28, Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Road,
   New Delhi-110 001
       ...Applicant




                                            1




                        CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                           PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

                                    OA No.198/2017

                                                      Reserved on: 14.01.2026
                                                   Pronounced on: 04.02.2026

           Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
           Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

           Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj,
           Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
           Central Hospital, New Delhi,
           Aged about 47 years,
           R/o 158/16, Railway Colony,
           Basant Road, New Delhi-55                           - Applicant

           (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

                                      VERSUS

           1. Union of India,
              Through its Secretary,
              Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan,
              New Delhi

           2. General Manager (P),
              Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi




 LALIT GOSAIN
           3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
              Through its Chairman,
              DRM Office Complex,
              Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

           4. DRM (P)
              Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

           5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
              Working as Lab. Supdt.
              Sub Divisional Railway Hospital,
              Itarasi, MP

           6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
              Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
              Lucknow, UP

           7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
              Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents

      (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr.
      Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
                                                                                 2   O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015
Item 23 (C-3)


   (By Advocate : Mr. Sachin Chauhan with Ms. Ridhi Dua)

                                                                                    VERSUS

   1. Union of India,
      The Secretary, Ministry of Steel,
      Udhyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011.

   2. Steel Authority of India Limited
      Through its Chairman, SAIL,
      Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
      New Delhi-110 003.

   3. The Sr. Manager (P-OD),
      Steel Authority of India Limited,
      Central Marketing Organisation,
      Ispat Bhavan, 40, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
      Kolkata-700071

   4. The Director (Commercial),
      Steel Authority of India Limited,
      Central Marketing Organisation,
      Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road,
      New Delhi 110 003.                                                                           ....Respondents

   (By Advocate : Mr. Archit Mishra with Mr. Digvijay Rai for SAIL)




                                            1




                        CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                           PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

                                    OA No.198/2017

                                                      Reserved on: 14.01.2026
                                                   Pronounced on: 04.02.2026

           Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
           Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

           Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj,
           Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
           Central Hospital, New Delhi,
           Aged about 47 years,
           R/o 158/16, Railway Colony,
           Basant Road, New Delhi-55                           - Applicant

           (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)

                                      VERSUS

           1. Union of India,
              Through its Secretary,
              Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan,
              New Delhi

           2. General Manager (P),
              Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi




 LALIT GOSAIN
           3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
              Through its Chairman,
              DRM Office Complex,
              Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

           4. DRM (P)
              Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

           5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
              Working as Lab. Supdt.
              Sub Divisional Railway Hospital,
              Itarasi, MP

           6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
              Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
              Lucknow, UP

           7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
              Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents

      (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr.
      Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
                                                                                              3                      O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015
Item 23 (C-3)

                                                                                                          ORDER

   Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :

Since the subject matter and reliefs sought are similar in both OA Nos. 697/2015 and 700/2015; hence both the OAs have been taken up for adjudication together and we are inclined to pass a common order in both these OAs with OA 697/2015 as the lead case.

2. The instant OA 695/2015 - Syed Md. Razi vs. SAIL & Ors.

has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) To quash and set aside the order dated 13.02.2014 whereby the Disagreement Note is being issued by the Disciplinary Authority, order dated 25.02.2014 whereby the extreme punishment i.e. dismissal from service is being imposed upon the applicant and order dated

03.05.2014 whereby the statutory appeal of the applicant has been rejected and to further direct the respondent that applicant be reinstated back in service with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.

(ii) To quash and set aside the That Memorandum NO. DISC/C003862/2012 dated 21.02.2012.

Or/and

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant."

3. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that the applicant was appointed as Junior Manager (M-

FP) with Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) w.e.f. 30.05.2008.

Initially he was placed under probation for a period of 12 months and upon successful completion thereof was confirmed in service w.e.f.

30.05.2009. According to the counsel, the applicant discharged his duties with devotion and always worked in interest of the Company.

The Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APAR) of the applicant consistently graded him as 'Grade-A', reflecting his meritorious service 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5 4 O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015 Item 23 (C-3) record. However, he was served with a Memorandum No. DISC/C003862/2012 dated 21.02.2012 whereby the Disciplinary Authority proposed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 25 of the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977. The applicant submitted his initial statement dated 02.03.2012 to the competent authority categorically denying all the charges leveled against him and also furnished detailed submissions in rebuttal of the allegations made against him. Subsequently, during the course of the departmental enquiry the applicant submitted his final brief before the Enquiry Officer on 15.02.2013. The applicant also sought production of three additional documents necessary for effectively presenting his defence. However, the said request was declined on vague and untenable grounds, thereby causing serious prejudice to the defence of the applicant. The Management examined only one witness, namely Shri A.K. Jha, Manager (Personnel), whose testimony allegedly failed to bring any substantive evidence to support the charges framed against the applicant. Thereafter, he was served with order dated 13.02.2014 along with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report and a Disagreement Note issued under the signature of the Senior Manager (P-OD) Kolkata, reflecting the views of the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Director (Commercial), in exercise of powers under Rule 26 of the SAIL CDA Rules. As per the counsel, a Disagreement Note is required to record tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, the Disagreement Note recorded a conclusive finding that the charges stood proved, thereby rendering the subsequent proceedings as sham. Controverting the findings recorded in the Disagreement Note, the applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 20.02.2014 reiterating his defence. However, in spite of the 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

Aggrieved, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal on 30.03.2014 raising detailed grounds assailing the order of dismissal. However, the Appellate Authority, vide communication dated 03.05.2014 issued by Senior Manager (P-OD) Kolkata, rejected the statutory appeal through a non-speaking and mechanical order without proper consideration of the grounds raised by the applicant. Being aggrieved by his dismissal order as well as the rejection of the statutory appeal the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present OA.

4. The counsel of the applicant argued vociferously on the following grounds :-

"5.1 The disagreement note is bad in law as the same does not record the reasons which are tentative in nature for disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer. The perusal of language of disagreement note dated 13.02.2014 will clearly established that the charges levelled in the present D.E. are already proved against the applicant at the time of issuance of disagreement note itself. The applicant is placing its reliance on the judgment of full bench of Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 577/2009 decided on 08.10.2010 in which after discussing the entire case law on the given issue the Hon'ble Full Bench clearly held :-

"9. In the light of the above we hold that a note of disagreement would not be tentative if it states that the charges against the charged officer stand proved. Mere expression of such view would make the note of disagreement had in law and liable to be quashed and set aside The reference is thus answered. The OA is remanded to the DB."

5.2 The perusal of the disagreement note will clearly establish that at the stage of disagreement note itself the Disciplinary Authority clearly recorded that the charges against the applicant 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

'For the reason aforesaid, I do not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Committee. Differing with the findings of the Enquiry Committee I am of the opinion that the charges in respect to:

1. Acting fraudulently and in a manner prejudicial company.

thereby to the interests of the committing misconduct as per Rules 5.0(1) 5.01(5) of SAIL CDA Rules, 1977.

2. Failing to maintain absolute integrity thereby violating Rule 4.0 (1) (1) of SAIL, CDA Rules, 1977 Are made out against Shri Razi."

5.3 The disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority is based on suspicion and surmises and not on the basis of the evidence that has come on record during the D.E. thus making the disagreement note as bad in law. The disagreement note is based on extraneous facts, which are note not proved in the Departmental Enquiry and thus the disagreement note is unsustainable in the eyes of laws.

5.4 The Disciplinary Authority while recording the reasons for disagreement with finding of Enquiry Committee is giving a finding in the disagreement note Itself that why the findings of the Enquiry Committee is not correct and unacceptable. The perusal of disagreement note clearly establishes that at the stage of disagreement note itself the Disciplinary Authority has already taken a decision to prove the charge against the applicant and to further impose the punishment. This act of the Disciplinary Authority makes the process of issuing a disagreement note and further giving an opportunity to applicant to defend as mere sham and thus is in violation of principle of natural justice and laid down departmental rules.

5.5 The order of Disciplinary Authority whereby the extreme punishment i.e. dismissal from service is being imposed is absolutely non-speaking and mechanical in nature and further establishes that Disciplinary Authority at the stage of disagreement note itself has made his mind to prove the charge against the applicant and further impose the extreme punishment i.e. dismissal from service.

5.6 The order of Disciplinary Authority is bad in law as the same is absolutely non-speaking and mechanical in nature and does not deal at all with the specific submissions on facts and laws raised by the applicant in the reply to the finding as well as in the defence statement made before the Enquiry Officer.

5.7 The order of Appellate Authority is absolutely bad In taw as the same is on the face of it non-speaking, mechanical and bold in nature and does not even record even a single submissions made by the applicant within the body of statutory appeal. The applicant is placing its reliance the judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal Judgment dated 04.05.2011 in O.A. No-616/2010 and Hon'ble High Court Judgment dated 26.05.2014 in LPA NO-736/2013 tilted Nidhi Kaushik Vs. UDI & ors. (DLT 2014 Vol. 212 P 5).

5.8 The present case is a case of no misconduct as applicant was merely a candidate; applicant had no role and control over the recruitment process hence fault should not be attributed to applicant.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

5.10 The present case is a case of no misconduct as applicant's application was in consonance with the advertisement. If the application was late or not in consonance with the advertisement, it would have been summarily rejected.

5.11 The present case is a case of no misconduct as applicant was not informed, as to in what manner applicant's application was not conforming to the requirement terms mentioned in the advertisement. The applicant did possess the requisite educational qualification as well as previous experience as required in the terms of advertisement.

5.12 The present case is a case of no misconduct as applicant's application was submitted after last date of submission could not be established from prosecution side. In order to prove this point applicant asked for producing the envelope in which application was posted which could not be produced by the custodian of documents.

5.13 The present case is a case of no misconduct as once filled-in application, draft, bio-data etc. are accepted after scrutiny and the authority issued the interview letter to the candidate to appear before interview panel, the candidate has been interviewed and selected, the candidate has been given offer of appointment by competent authority (Personnel Deptt.) and the candidate has joined the organization, non-conformities mentioned in under this head by Prosecution side does not hold good. A candidate applying for a job cannot be held responsible for any of these lacunas. There were many options available to recruiting authority at various stages: (i) Applications could have summary rejected.

(ii) The candidates would not have been called for interview. (iii) The candidates would not have been selected and given offer of appointment (iv) The candidates would not have been allowed to join if they have concealed some material facts etc.(v) the Candidate should have not been confirmed after the probation period. And the same confirmation was signed by Sr. Manager (P- OD)-Kolkatta.

5.14 The present case is a case of no misconduct as it was up to the Management of BSL that the advertisement was published in one newspaper only. Even if advertisement was published in one newspaper, it cannot be said that the requirement of Artcile-14 and 16 have not been followed. As publication of vacancies was made in a national level newspaper, the requirements under Articles 14 & 16 have been fulfilled.

5.15 The present case is a case of no misconduct as applicant was merely a job aspirant, applicant applied for the post and it was not possible on his part to fix up the liberal criteria of qualification and experience for selection or why only five candidates had applied for the said post. It was the prerogative of recruitment authority to fix up the criteria or proceed or not to proceed for interview even if only five candidates had applied for four posts.

5.16 The present case is a case of no misconduct as Advertisement in "The Asian Age" says application form duly filled-in with all testimonials should reach Post Box No. B 25 within 8 days by ordinary post only, it does not say that 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

5.17 The present case is a case of no misconduct as from his initial presentation to his final brief, PO has pointed out deficiencies in the recruitment process adopted and tried to relate the deficiencies to 'Article of Charges' on applicant on the basis of suspicion and surmises. Prosecution side could not produce any evidence to support 'Article of Charges'. Requirement of proof cannot be substituted by surmise and conjecture. The only Management Witness (MW-4) produced by the PO was not at all involved in this particular recruitment and thus no evidence is being recorded by the department in the entire departmental enquiry in support of the allegation made against the applicant thus making the present case as a case of no evidence.

5.18 The present case is a case of no misconduct as it is not the fault of candidate that the recruitment process adopted by SAIL- BSL was deficient(if any). To fix up criteria for selection, to adhere to the extant recruitment procedure, to accept or reject any application and to provide an equal opportunity to all eligible citizens of India in matter of Public Employment was the responsibility of recruiting Authority. A person is deemed to be an employee only after the date of his joining in the organization. The applicant stated that after joining SAIL-BSL he has not indulged in any act in any manner which could be considered as fraudulent act, or an act of misconduct. It is nowhere established during the departmental enquiry that applicant had hidden or misrepresented material facts to gain appointment.

5.19 The present case is a case of no misconduct that even as per the charges framed in the present D.E. it does not constitutes a misconduct. The perusal of Article of Charge clearly establishes that there is no specific allegation of any misconduct against the applicant and even if there is an iota of allegation then even the same is on presumption. The allegation constituting the misconduct has to be definite but in the present case neither the allegation leveled against the applicant constitute a misconduct and further the allegations are vague, evasive based on presumption and assumption. That the present case is a case of no misconduct as the Hon'ble Tribunal has held in the case of GP Sewalia Vs. UOI OA No. 223/2006 judgment dated 27.08.2008 whereby it has been held "Non-performance of duties, which may have no element of unlawful behaviour, willful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, misdemeanor, misdeed, impropriety or a forbidden act, may some time amount to not carrying out the duties efficiently, but the same cannot be construed to be misconduct." The allegation leveled in the present D.E. does not fall under the definition of misconduct.

5.20 The applicant placing its reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. J. Ahmed (1979) 2 SCC 286 held that deficiencies in personal character or personal ability would not constitute misconduct for taking disciplinary proceedings. It was further held that negligence in performance of duty or inefficiency in discharge of duty are not acts of 'commission or omission' under rule 4 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules.

5.21 The present case is a case of no evidence as the sole witness who has appeared in the present D.E. i.e. Sh. A.K Jha has nothing to do with the allegation made in the present D.E. His deposition in the present D.E. does not bring any evidence on 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

5.22 The present case is a case of no evidence as there is no document which is being proved in the D.E. on the basis of which any finding of guilt in respect of allegation leveled in the present D.E. could be given. There is no evidence brought on record even in the form of any document in the entire D.E. so in order to prove the allegation leveled in the present D.E. thus making the present case is a case of no evidence.

5.23 That the present case is a case of no evidence as it is an admitted position that none of the document relied by the Disciplinary Authority is proved in the departmental enquiry by any witness thus making the present case as a case of no evidence and no misconduct.

5.24 That the Disciplinary Authority is disagreeing with the report of Enquiry Committee on the basis of extraneous facts and documents which are neither being proved in the D.E. nor brought on record thus making the order of disagreement note as bad in law as the same is based on extraneous facts.

5.25 That the present case is a case of no misconduct and no evidence as there is no finding by any court of law regarding any fraud being conducted in the recruitment process in which the applicant was appointed.

5.26 That the applicant sought document/information during the D.E. so in order to give an effective defense and the same document/documents are as follows: (a) Copy of full BSL Recruitment Manual (b) List of recruitment process followed in SAIL during last 25 years, apart from MTTs & Campus recruitment. (c) The envelope in which the applicant form/resume was submitted by applicant.

5.27 The relevance of above seeking documents/information was to give an effective defence in respect of allegation leveled in the present D.E. It is a matter of record that authority are under an obligation to supply documents/information to the delinquent official during the D.E. which are relevant for presenting an effective defence. The applicant is placing its reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court 1970 S.L.R. Page 400 Jug Raj Singh Vs. Delhi Admn. (Delhi).

5.28 That the punishment imposed upon the applicant is too severe and harsh in comparison to what has been alleged against the applicant and the Appellate Authority does not consider the question of proportionality of punishment despite the same being specifically raised in the Statutory Appeal.

5.29 That the order of the Appellate Authority whereby the statutory appeal of the applicant has been rejected is bad in law as the Appellate Authority does not consider the question of proportionality of punishment despite the same is being specifically raised within the body of statutory appeal of applicant thus making the same order is bad in law.

5.30 That the present case is a case of no misconduct as it is a matter of record that the applicant alongwith the application of C.V. The applicant submitted his resume in accordance with advertisement and there is no material of any kind whereby it could be even remotely concluded that the application of applicant was time barred.

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

5.32 That the present case is a case of no misconduct as admittedly the advertisement had appeared in the newspaper on 5.4.2008 and the application of the applicant was duly submitted within the time provided by the respondent.

5.33 That the present case is a case of no misconduct as the applicant can not be held responsible for any internal delay (if there was any) in transmission of application of applicant. The envelope in which the application of the applicant was received would clearly establish the actual date of receipt of applicant's application but in the absence of the same envelope no allegation as leveled in the Departmental Enquiry can be levied against the applicant.

5.34 That in the absence of any documentary proof being produced in Departmental Enquiry so in order to establish that the application of applicant was belated, the act of Disciplinary Authority to disagree with the report of the Enquiry Committee is bad in law.

5.35 That the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note in respect of charge which was not even the part of the Article of Charge framed in the D.E. The D.A. can disagree with the report of Enquiry Committee only in respect of charge which are framed in the D.E. but here in the present case the D.A. disagreed with the report of Enquiry Committee in respect of all together different charge thus making the Disagreement Note as bad in law. It has been noted by the Disciplinary Authority that there seems to be collusion between the candidates and the selectors. It is submitted that when Article of charges were framed, there was no charge in the Articles of Charge of any collusion between the applicant and the Selectors. The disciplinary authority can not issue a disagreement note on extraneous charges and thus the disagreement note is bad in law.

5.36 That the Disciplinary Authority is disagreeing with the report of the enquiry committee which are beyond the scope of articles of charges therefore, the aforesaid observations of the Disciplinary Authority are not borne out from the record. The applicant during the proceedings of the enquiry committee was never called upon to answer or face any such allegations of collusion and the allegations are being made herein for the first time in the disagreement note.

5.37 That the Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1977 in pursuance of which proceedings are being initiated and conducted against applicant are not applicable to the aforesaid allegations. In this regard, applicant submit that Section 3.8 (A) of the said Rules defines 'Employee' to mean as under:-- > "an Employee"

means:-- > (i) A person in the employment of Company including employees whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of Government or a Subsidiary or any Public Undertaking but does not include casual employee, work-charged or contingent staff or workman as defined in the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946; and > (ii) Persons on deputation to the Company from Government or a Subsidiary.

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

"4.0(1) (i) : maintain absolute integrity;

5.0(1): Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the Company or of a Subsidiary or of property of another person within the premises of the company.

5.0(5): Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Company".

Section 4.0(1) provides for action against an employee if an employee of the Company has not maintained absolute integrity.

Similarly, Section 5.0(1) provides that an act of an employee of theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the Company or of a Subsidiary or of property of another person within the premises of the Company shall constitute misconduct.

Similarly 5.0(5) provides that an employee acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company shall be treated as conducting misconduct.

5.39 That it is relevant and pertinent to mention that the acts which have been alleged against applicant do not relate to the period when applicant was an employee of the Company and thus all the charges made against the applicant are not even maintainable on the face of it thus making the present case as case of no misconduct.

5.40 That applicant came to be an employee of the Company on 23.05.2008. The applicant was not an employee of the Company on 05.04.2008 when the applications were invited. The applicant was not an employee of the Company on 13.04.2008 when applicant had made an application or on 16.04.2008 when as per the Management, applicant had made an application or on 21.04.2008 when applicant interview was conducted, or on 23.05.2008 when the Management sent applicant an offer of appointment. The applicant came to be an employee of the company only on 23.05.2008 when applicant accepted the offer of appointment sent to applicant."

5. The counsel of the applicant further argued assiduously and pleaded that the reference to CBI is extraneous in this OA. In the disciplinary enquiry, CBI case was not an issue. Secondly, the charges framed in the charge sheet do not constitute misconduct. The Disagreement Note of the Disciplinary Authority ought to have been tentative/presumptuous but that is not the case and exhibits the pre-

mediated and pre-determined mindset of the respondents while the 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

6. The counsel of the applicant relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble High Court and decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal to support his arguments :-

(i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bishamber Nath vs. UOI - WP(C) No. 6614/1998 dated 28.08.2012. Paras 33 and 34 of which are quoted below :-

"33. Thus, the penalty levied upon the petitioner has to be quashed and for which the factors would be:-

(i) Delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings.

(ii) The Note of Disagreement being a conclusive opinion and not a tentative reasoning and as a consequence the Disciplinary Authority working with a closed mind.

(iii) No reasons being recorded after dealing with petitioner's response to the Note of Disagreement in the penalty order levied.

(iv) The charge proved being one of negligence in supervising the working of the cashier and there being no finding that the misconduct was of a grave specie.

34. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The penalty Imposed upon the petitioner is set aside. The 20% pension cut for a period of three years is directed to be paid to the petitioner within 6 weeks from today, and if not so paid we direct that the amount shall bear simple Interest @10% per annum reckoned 6 weeks from today till when payment is made."

(ii) Full Bench Judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 577/2009 decided on 08.10.2010 - Shri Raja Ram & Anr. vs. GNCTD & Ors.

Paras 8 and 9 of which are reproduced below :-

"8. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Yoginath D Bagde (supra), had held the decision of the disciplinary committee of the High Court to be wrong, not because it 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5 15 O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015 Item 23 (C-3) had proposed penalty in the note of disagreement but because a final view about the guilt of the charged officer had been taken. It is clear from the observation of the Supreme Court that findings were final: what was tentative was the punishment. In our view this could only be interpreted as saying that the findings should be tentative. The observation of the Supreme Court in K L Shepherd (supra) is significant that once a decision is taken, it is more likely than not to be upheld and not changed merely on consideration of the representation During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi wondered as to what the disciplinary authority should record, if it cannot record that the charges stand proved by the reasoning given by the disciplinary authority. The correct procedure in our view is for the disciplinary authority to record that the disciplinary authority does not agree with the conclusions of the inquiry authority on the grounds, which may then be stated. The grounds can thereafter be mentioned, without concluding that the charge(s) is/are proved. The charged officer will then have an opportunity to repel the reasoning of the disciplinary authority. Only after going through the representation of the charged officer against his reasoning in the note of disagreement, the disciplinary authority may come to any conclusion about the charges being proved or not proved. If the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion about the guilt of the charged officer without hearing him, it would show an inbuilt blas and the cause of the charged officer will suffer. In essence, inferring of guilt without giving an opportunity to the charged officer to be heard would be in gross violation of the principles of natural justice that an employee should be given full opportunity to defend himself before being held to be guilty. The Article 311 of the Constitution also mandates that no employee would be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CCS (CCA) Rules have been framed under the proviso to the Article 309 of the Constitution and these are thus statutory rules and cannot be trifled with lightly. The rules have to be followed in letter and spirit. Therefore, if the rules provide that the disciplinary authority has to give tentative reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry authority, it is definitely precluded from expressing definite and positive finding of guilt in the note of disagreement and thereby giving only a post- decisional hearing to the charged officer.

9. In the light of the above we hold that a note of disagreement would not be tentative jil states that the charges against the charged officer stand proved. Mere expression of such view would make the note of disagreement bad in law and liable to be quashed and 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5 16 O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015 Item 23 (C-3) set aside. The reference is thus answered. The OA is remanded to the DB."

(iii) Decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 616/2010 - Head Constable Chander Veer vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors.

dated 04.05.2011. Paras 4 to 7 of which are extracted below :-

"4 A perusal of the above order shows that it is a non- speaking, non-reasoned order. In the order, the Disciplinary Authority has narrated the sequence of events right from the stage of initiation of the departmental enquiry and though he has taken note of the submissions of the applicant in his representation against the findings of the enquiry officer, he has not dealt with any of these submissions nor has he given any reasons for rejecting the same.

5. There is a plethora of law to the effect that an order granted by a quasi judicial/administrative authority must indicate the reasons in support of the view taken/arrived at. It is then only that an employee adversely affected thereby would be able to effectively challenge the same.

In C.V. Mohan Kumar v. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Ors. 2008 (2) SLJ (CAT) 104 it has been held that disciplinary authority/appellate authority must consider all the points raised by the applicant The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.N. Mukherjee Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimizes chances of arbitrariness.

The Hon'ble Apex Court also in a very recent judgment in Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others (2010) 9 SCC 496 decided on September 8, 2010 has again emphasized that the giving of reasons is an indispensable component of the decision making process and that recording of reasons in support of each order of a quasi judicial authority or even an administrative authority must be insisted upon as it is meant to serve the wider principle that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done.

6. Keeping in view the above judicial pronouncements, we have no hesitation in holding that the order of the Disciplinary Authority is a totally non-speaking order and is not sustainable in law and is liable to be 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5 17 O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015 Item 23 (C-3) quashed. The Appellate Authority's order would also resultantly need to be quashed.

7. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 28.05.2009 and also the Appellate Authority's order dated 11.123.2009-are quashed and the case is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh reasoned order dealing with each issue raised by the applicant in his reply to the Enquiry Officer's findings. The applicant shall have the right to submit an appeal against the fresh order passed, which would then be dealt with appropriately by the Appellate Authority also."

(iv) Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 4808/2018 - Union of India and Others vs. Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha. Paras 1, 20 and 21 of which are quoted below :-

"1. While working as Postal Assistant in the IPHO², the respondent was served with a charge-sheet dated 6 September 2010, proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965. There was only one article of charge against him, which was that, while applying for recruitment to the post of PA as a candidate belonging to the OBC category, in response to the advertisement released by the Department of Posts in the Employment News of 12-18 December 1998, he had submitted a false and fabricated mark sheet, reflecting his marks as scored in the Intermediate Examination in Science held by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna as 835/900. Believing the said certificate, the respondent was stated to have been declared successful in the selection process for appointment as PA, following the examination which was held on 22 June, 17 August and 20 August 1999. He was, therefore, appointed as PA. The DOP wrote to the BIEC for verification of the marksheet submitted by the respondent, and the verification reports, received from the BIEC under cover of letters dated 7 May 2002 and 18 November 2002, vouchsafed the marksheet submitted by the respondent along with his application.

                                                                                xxxxxx                      xxxxxxx
                                                                                  xxxxxxxx

20. We therefore, are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that the disagreement note dated 29 February 2012 was vitiated, as it reflected a conclusive determination of guilt of the respondent and, therefore, was not a disagreement note at all.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5 18 O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015 Item 23 (C-3)

21. The second ground on which we are inclined to accept the decision of the Tribunal, is that PW-7 never turned up in the witness box. In Roop Singh Negi v Punjab National Bank, the Supreme Court clearly held, in the following passage, that documents, relied upon to support the allegations against a charged officer, were required to be proved in accordance with law, failing which, no reliance could be placed on them in disciplinary proceedings:

"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial 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."

(Emphasis supplied)"

7. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicant and submitted a brief synopsis on behalf of the respondents - SAIL (BSL) wherein he submitted that the applicant's appointment had arisen from a recruitment process which was later found to be vitiated by serious irregularities. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the OA. He further submitted that advertisement dated 05.04.2008 had been issued for filling four vacancies of Jr. Manager (Liaison & Admn.) which were advertised only in Mumbai Edition of Asian Age Newspaper on 05.04.2008. Further, the vacancies in BSL were to be filled up not only for Mumbai but also for Chennai but no publication was made in any Chennai Newspaper. He added that although all posts were for Bokaro Steel Plant, yet no advertisement was made in Bokaro. As a 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5 19 O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015 Item 23 (C-3) result no candidate from Bokaro could apply against these posts.

Also the advertisement had prescribed a time limit of only 8 days for submission of applications, which was in clear deviation from the recruitment manual that mandated a minimum period of 4 weeks for submission of applications, thereby restricting fair participation of eligible candidates. And the address mentioned in the advertisement as "post box no. B-25" was incomplete and lacked necessary particulars such as location of Post Office, District or State, due to which correspondence could not have ordinarily reached the concerned authority. He added that recruitment rules required selection through written test followed by interview, whereas in the present case only interviews were conducted. The records indicated manipulation showing that only four candidates were shown to have appeared and all were selected, reflecting irregularities in the process.

Moreover, the applicant's CV was received beyond the last date and was submitted without signature, date or specification of the post applied for. Despite this, interviews were conducted and the applicant was selected and appointed. It was further submitted that though appointment letters required joining at Mumbai, the applicant initially joined at Bokaro and was subsequently transferred without any cogent and administrative reasons. The investigation further revealed that forged experience certificates were submitted by certain selected candidates and selection records were fabricated too. Complaints regarding backdoor recruitment led to criminal investigation and filing of chargesheet against officials and candidates involved in the recruitment process. Further, on the basis of material collected during investigation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant vide memorandum dated 21.02.2012 in which the applicant 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5 20 O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015 Item 23 (C-3) was afforded full opportunity to defend himself and he had participated in the enquiry by submitting written statements and final brief. Subsequently, after consideration of the enquiry report and entire material on record, the disciplinary authority issued Disagreement Note dated 13.02.2014 and granted him opportunity to submit representation. The reply submitted by the applicant was duly considered and after considering the gravity of misconduct, penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him vide order dated 25.02.2014. Even the statutory Appeal preferred by the applicant was also duly examined and rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.05.2014 after considering the record and grounds raised by him. The counsel submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with rules and principles of natural justice and the penalty imposed was justified and proportionate.

8. The counsel also relied upon and handed across the Bar the following Judgments in a three tier format and the same are listed below :-

(1) Judgments pertaining to similarly situated candidates :-

(i) Ratnesh Kumar vs. UOI & Ors., CAT Principal Bench O.A.-

3511/2014 (Ref. Paras 11, 15 and 16);

(ii) Ratnesh Kumar vs. UOI & Ors., Delhi HC W.P. (C)- 1127/2017. (Ref. Paras 11, 12 and 13)

(iii) Ratnesh Kumar vs. UOI & Ors.. SLP (C)-11249/2018 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has ordered as under :-

"Delay condoned.

No ground for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of."

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

(iv) Rajnish Kumar vs. UOI & Ors., CAT Patna Bench O.A.- 050/00493/14, (2) Individual innocence has no place, when recruitment process is itself tainted :-

(i) Renu vs. District & Sessions Judge, (2014) 14 SCC 50, the relevant excerpts of which are as under :-

"14. In State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty this Court dealt with the constitutional principle of providing equality of opportunity to all which mandatorily requires that vacancy must be notified in advance meaning thereby that information of the recruitment must be disseminated in a reasonable manner in public domain ensuring maximum participation of all eligible candidates, thereby the right of equal opportunity is effectuated. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 452, para 36) "36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting d applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the noticeboard, etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit."

16. Another important requirement of public appointment is that of transparency Therefore, the advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection and recruitment. The qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts should be explicitly provided and the schedule of recruitment process should be published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken. This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

(ii) Krishan Yadav vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 165, wherein it has been held as under :-

"19. It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a Minister to a mental everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High Court should have taken the path of least resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless.

20. In the above circumstances, what are we to do? The only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept this argument. When the entire selection is stinking. conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence-has-no-place as "fraud unravels everything". To put it in other words, the entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly we hereby set aside the selection of Taxation Inspectors."

(iii) Union of India vs. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146, para 12 of which is as under :-

"12. As per the report of CBI the whole selection smacks of mala fides and arbitrariness. All norms are said to have been violated with impunity at each stage viz right from the stage of entertaining applications, with answer sheets while in the custody of Chairman, in holding typing test, in interview and in the end while preparing the final result. In such circumstances it may not be possible to pick out or choose a few persons in respect of whom alone the selection could be cancelled and their services in pursuance thereof could be terminated. The illegality and irregularity are so intermixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out the right from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon. It is not a case where a question of misconduct on the part of a 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5 23 O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015 Item 23 (C-3) candidate is to be gone into but a case where those who conducted the selection have rendered it wholly unacceptable Guilt of those who have been selected is not the question under consideration but the question is, could such selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment? We are therefore of the view that it is not one of those cases h where it may have been possible to issue any individual notice of misconduct."

(3) Disagreement Note :-

(i) UOI & Ors. vs. Vinod Babu, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2049.

The relevant excerpts of which are quoted below :-

"9. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Infirmity, at all, respondent/applicant was likely to be prejudiced, i.e., by the cured at the stage when consideration of the document not put to him. Interestingly, in the reply to on the disagreement note made respondent/applicant does not state that the absence of the joint 22.04.2008, the enquiry report had vitiated the proceedings. He did not seek to either lead any further evidence, or to cross examine any of the departmental witnesses as a result of the said joint enquiry report being furnished. On the other hand, the merits of the contentions in the matter, l.e., the findings of the regular enquiry juxtaposed with the findings and recommendations of the joint enquiry report were highlighted and discussed in the reply to the disagreement note. In these circumstances, the CAT's findings that the respondent/applicant was prejudiced by the absence of the copy of the joint enquiry report during the enquiry proceedings cannot be supported. Those findings are accordingly set aside. We reiterate that once the joint inquiry report was made available at the stage of issuance of the disagreement by the disciplinary authority, having regard to the fact that the enquiry proceedings had not culminated into a statutory order, there is no question of prejudice to the respondent/applicant.

10. So far as the second aspect, i.e., the notice of disagreement and the manner in which it was done is concerned, Yoginath D. Begde (supra) no doubt, suggests that disciplinary authority ought to have prefaced or prefixed the discussion with something to suggest that conclusions are tentative. In this case, the disagreement note of 10.04.2008 does not contain any such terms. However, we are of the opinion that mere absence of such term, or any to the like effect would not ipso facto invalidate the show cause notice which conveys the substance of the disagreement, i.e., that the disciplinary authority 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5 24 O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015 Item 23 (C-3) was of the opinion that the Inquiry Officer's recommendations stating that there was no material to implicate the respondent, was incorrect. The disciplinary authority went on to suggest that such material existed in the form of the joint inquiry report. The substance of the disagreement note, therefore, was that the Inquiry Officer felt that there was material to support the charge rather than exonerate the respondent - which is what was exactly put to the respondent/applicant who dealt with it appropriately. In these circumstances, the findings of the CAT to the contrary are disapproved and are accordingly set aside.

11. This Court is of the opinion that the approach of the CAT has been hyper-technical and displays an over anxiety to somehow upset the disciplinary authority's determination which were confirmed by the appellate authority, and subsequently by the revisional authority - save to the extent that the penalty was modified. This Court is mindful of the line of reasoning of the Supreme Court starting with Union of India v H.C. Goel, 1964 AIR 364 and State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364 to the effect that so long as there is some material to support the findings in an administrative proceedings to wit disciplinary proceedings, Article 226 scrutiny does not authorise the Courts to substitute themselves as appellate fora to conclude and weigh the relevant materials. The only exception is that if conclusions are not based on any material, or the inference drawn are so manifestly absurd that no reasonable man can arrive at such findings. In the present case, neither of the two exceptions are discernable. Plainly, the CAT overstretched itself to upset the concurrent technical findings of three statutory authorities in this case. This Court accordingly disapprove the judgment of the CAT; the impugned order is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed but without any order as to costs."

(ii) A. K. Bhagat vs. UOI, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10689, wherein it has been held as under :-

"54. When we examine the Disagreement Note issued by the Disciplinary Authority in the present case, in the light of the manner in which the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to deal with the same, the only conclusion that we can reach is that the view expressed by the Disciplinary Authority in the Disagreement Note was "tentative" and not "final, even though the language conveys otherwise. Firstly, we may observe that the Disagreement Note 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

7. Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents (Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5 25 O.A No. 697/2015 with OA No. 700/2015 Item 23 (C-3) clearly sets out the reasons for disagreeing with the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer. Secondly, the Disciplinary Authority put the petitioner/delinquent employee to notice that he being in disagreement with the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer, the delinquent was being supplied with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and he was directed that "If you have to file any petition to the Disagreement Note or the departmental inquiry you may file your response". He also stated that if the petitioner chose not to file a response within fifteen days, it would be presumed that he had nothing to say regarding "this Disagreement Note and the departmental inquiry and according to that final order shall be passed". Thus, though the Disciplinary Authority did not use words such as "tentative" "propose or the like, he clearly gave an opportunity to the petitioner to represent, inter alia, against the Disagreement Note within fifteen days and also informed him that a final order would be passed only after his representation is received and, if the same is not so received, in absence thereof.

56. If the Disciplinary Authority would have already arrived at his final opinion with regard to the 'guilt' of the petitioner while issuing the Disagreement Note, he would not have examined the matter in such depth and would have summarily rejected the representation made by the petitioner. However, that is not the case. The Disciplinary Authority specifically takes note of each & every aspect raised by the petitioner in his Disagreement Note, and squarely deals with them in his final order dated 25.09.2012. His reasoning is extremely detailed and is founded upon the evidence recorded in the inquiry proceedings. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the consideration of the petitioner's representation to the Disagreement Note has been undertaken with a close mind, or in a premeditated manner. There is no basis to infer that merely because the Disciplinary Authority had not used the appropriate words, such as, "tentative and his opinion appeared to convey the meaning of his opinion being "final", he felt bound to stick to his opinion contained in the Disagreement Note. Not only this, the petitioner has had two departmental reviews of the final order thereafter firstly, in appeal, and thereafter, in revision. Both these orders are exhaustive, and consider the merits of the case independently. Thus, we reject the petitioner's plea that the Disagreement Note contained the "final" opinion or finding of the Disciplinary Authority regarding his "guilt", and that it did not contain the "tentative" opinion on the "guilt"

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

(iii) A. K. Bhagat vs. UOI, SLP (C)-30047/2019 ;

(iv) UOI & Ors. vs. Prof. P.N. Bhat, (2007) 2 SLR 29 (DB), the relevant extracts of which are reproduced below :-

"4. The petitioners drew up a disciplinary proceedings against the respondent by issuing a charge memorandum which contained 13 charges drawn up against the respondent. After completion of the inquiry proceeding the inquiry officer submitted his report absolving the respondent from all the 13 charges. The aforesaid inquiry report was placed before the disciplinary authority. An order is placed on record which is dated 17th/24th August, 2001 wherefrom it is clearly established that the enquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer was examined by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The Council is the disciplinary authority of the petitioners and, therefore, one of the submissions that the said disagreement note was not considered and decided by the disciplinary authority is found to be without any merit. It is also communicated in the said communication dated 17th/24th August, 2001 that the Council upon going through the Inquiry report had proposed to differ with the findings of the inquiry officer in respect of three charges, namely, Charge No. IV, Charge No. V and Charge no. VII.

6. We have carefully perused the said disagreement note and on Scrutinizing thereof, we are of the considered opinion that disagreement note that has been prepared and finalized by the disciplinary authority of tentative nature which is apparent from the expression used in the language of the aforesaid office memorandum. It is clearly stated that after examination of the inquiry report the Council has "proposed" to differ with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The said expression clearly makes it clear that the aforesaid difference and disagreement is only tentative in nature and not a final decision. The same is also corroborated by the last paragraph of the said communication wherein it is clearly stated that the disciplinary authority would take a suitable decision after considering the inquiry report and submission of the charged officer. Therefore, whatever was recorded in the said disagreement note was apparently tentative in nature and not a final decision taken. The disciplinary authority proposed to take a final decision after scrutiny of the inquiry report and the reply, if any, received from the respondent."

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

(v) Prof. P.N. Bhat vs. UOI, SLP (C)-7140/2006 ;

9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, Hon'ble High Court and Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal.

10. On a careful reading of the charge memorandum, it becomes evident that no specific act of misconduct has been attributed to the applicant. There is no allegation that the applicant submitted any forged document, made any false declaration, suppressed any material fact, or manipulated any part of the recruitment process. There is equally no allegation in the Articles of Charge that the applicant colluded with any officer of the Company. The allegation of "collusion"

appears for the first time in the disagreement note issued by the Disciplinary Authority and not in the charge memorandum itself. The charge, therefore, proceeds on generalized assertions regarding the recruitment process rather than on any defined act or omission attributable to the applicant.

11. It is well settled that a charge in disciplinary proceedings must be specific and precise so as to enable the delinquent employee to effectively defend himself. In Union of India v. J. Ahmed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that negligence, inefficiency or administrative lapses do not amount to misconduct unless they involve culpable intent or unlawful behaviour. In the present case, neither mens rea nor any dishonest conduct has been pleaded or proved against the applicant. The charge memorandum does not disclose how the applicant's conduct falls within the ambit of fraud or 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

12. The alleged irregularities cited by the respondents pertain to publication of advertisement in a single edition, a short submission window for applications, non-conduct of a written test, and selection of four candidates. These are matters within the exclusive domain of the recruiting authority. A candidate has no control over the manner of publication of advertisement, the procedure adopted for selection, or the administrative modalities of recruitment. In the absence of proof that the applicant influenced or manipulated the process, no nexus can be drawn between the procedural irregularities and his conduct.

13. The enquiry proceedings further reveal that no substantive evidence was adduced to establish fraud or collusion. The envelope allegedly demonstrating delayed receipt of application was not produced. No documentary evidence was proved in accordance with law. Only one witness was examined, who was not part of the recruitment process and had no direct knowledge of the alleged irregularities. The findings, therefore, rest on conjecture rather than proof. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere production of documents is not proof thereof and that findings in disciplinary proceedings must be based on legally admissible evidence. The present case falls squarely within the category of "no evidence".

14. Another significant aspect is that the alleged acts relate to the stage prior to the applicant's entry into service. The definition of "employee" under the SAIL CDA Rules contemplates a person in the employment of the Company. The advertisement, submission of 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

15. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued a disagreement note stating that the charges are "made out" against the applicant. The language employed in the disagreement note is not tentative but conclusive. It conveys a pre-determined opinion of guilt. The Full Bench of the Tribunal in Shri Raja Ram v. GNCTD held that a disagreement note must reflect a tentative view and not a final conclusion. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Ravi Shankar Kumar Sinha observed that if the Disciplinary Authority records a conclusive finding in the disagreement note, the subsequent opportunity of representation becomes illusory. In the present case, the final penalty order does not demonstrate independent consideration of the applicant's representation, and the appellate order is non-speaking. This vitiates the decision-making process.

16. The respondents have placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ratnesh Kumar vs. Union of India and the connected proceedings before the Tribunal. In that case, however, the factual matrix was materially different. The Tribunal had recorded findings of a larger conspiracy in the recruitment process, and evidence was led establishing that the selection was manipulated and tailored for specific candidates. The Hon'ble High Court noted cumulative circumstances demonstrating deception and upheld the 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

17. The present case does not disclose any such findings. There is no judicial declaration that the recruitment process in question was void or fraudulent. No evidence has been brought on record establishing that the applicant was part of any conspiracy. No forged certificate or fabricated document has been proved against him. The Enquiry Officer did not find the charges proved. The allegation of collusion was not even part of the Articles of Charge. Thus, the factual substratum in Ratnesh Kumar is fundamentally distinguishable.

18. The respondents have also invoked the doctrine that fraud vitiates all actions, relying upon decisions such as Krishan Yadav v.

State of Haryana, Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, and Renu v.

District & Sessions Judge. These judgments apply where systemic fraud is judicially established and the entire selection process is found to be hopelessly tainted. In such circumstances, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates becomes impossible. In the present matter, no such systemic fraud has been proved. At best, certain procedural irregularities are alleged. Fraud cannot be presumed; it must be established by cogent evidence. In the absence of proof of fraudulent intent or active participation by the applicant, the doctrine cannot be invoked.

19. Even on the question of proportionality, the penalty of dismissal appears excessive. The applicant had successfully completed probation, was confirmed in service, and received favourable performance appraisals. There is no allegation of any misconduct during his tenure. While it is true that negative equality cannot be 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No.198/2017 Reserved on: 14.01.2026 Pronounced on: 04.02.2026 Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway, Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal) VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

Dismissal is ordinarily reserved for cases involving proven moral turpitude, fraud or loss of integrity. In the present case, such elements have not been established.

20. In view of the foregoing analysis, the Memorandum dated 21.02.2012 suffers from vagueness and absence of nexus between the alleged recruitment irregularities and the applicant's conduct. The proceedings are vitiated by lack of evidence, jurisdictional infirmity in relation to pre-employment acts, and a conclusive disagreement note that undermines the principles of natural justice. The reliance placed by the respondents upon Ratnesh Kumar and allied judgments is misplaced, as the factual and evidentiary foundation in the present case is entirely distinct. Consequently, the impugned penalty order and the appellate order cannot be sustained in law.

21. Accordingly, both the OAs are allowed with the following directions:-

(a) The Memorandum dated 21.02.2012, the Disagreement Note dated 13.02.2014, the penalty order dated 25.02.2014 dismissing the applicant from service, and the appellate order dated 03.05.2014 are hereby quashed and set aside.

(b) The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants in service forthwith.

(c) The applicants shall be entitled to consequential benefits. However, the question of back wages shall be regulated in accordance with law and settled principles governing grant of back wages, keeping in view the facts of the case.

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

(d) The period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement shall be treated in accordance with rules, subject to the decision regarding back wages as aforesaid.

22. The above directions shall be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

23. There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be kept in each file of the OAs.





   (Dr. Sumeet Jerath)                                                                                                  (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
      Member (A)                                                                                                               Member (J)


   /Mbt/




                                            1

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

2. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi LALIT GOSAIN

3. Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad) Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad

4. DRM (P) Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP

5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad, Working as Lab. Supdt.

Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP

6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt., Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Sh Rajkumar Jatiya vs Steel Authority Of India on 18 February, 2026