Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Dr P Jayasankar vs The Director Central Marine Fisheries ... on 19 February, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/00418/2020
Thursday, this the 19th day of February, 2026.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Dr. P. Jayasankar, aged 60 years, S/o. Prof. M. Induchoodan (late),
Principal Scientist, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute,
P.B.No.1603, Ernakulam North P.O., Kochi-682 018,
residing at 'Rachana', Chittoor Road, Ernakulam South,
Kochi-682 016 . -Applicant
[By Advocates : Mr. P.K. Madhusoodhanan and Mr. Binoy Krishna P.M.]
Versus
1. The Director, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute,
(Indian Council of Agricultural Research),
P.B.No.1603, Ernakulam North P.O., Kochi-682 018.
2. The Additional Secretary, DARE, & Secretary, Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
4. The President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Society,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 114.
5. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Represented by its Secretary, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 114.
-Respondents
[By Advocate : Mrs. Sreekala T.K.]
The Original Application having been heard on 19.02.2026, the
Tribunal on the same day delivered the following:
2026.02.20
VISHAL 15:50:10+05'30'
2024.3.0
2
O R D E R (Oral):-
Justice K. Haripal, Judicial Member The applicant has retired from service on 31.10.2021 as Principal Scientist in Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI). From 12.01.2012 to 20.01.2017 he had functioned as Director, CIFA, Bhubaneshwar. On 25.05.2018, he was served with Annexure A6 Charge Memorandum containing three charges as under:
"Article of Charge-I While functioning as Director, CIFA, Bhubaneshwar, Dr. P. Jayshankar was allotted Quarter No 1 vacated by Dr. Eknath, the then Director (Retired). Instead of staying in Quarter No 1, Dr. Jayshankar occupied Quarter No 2, meant for Ladies Hostel by abusing his official position and further spent Rs. 8.15 laksh (approx.) for its renovation which tantamount of misuse of Govt. Fund, thereby violating the provisions Rule 21 of GFR, 2005.
By his above acts, Dr. P. Jayshankar has failed to maintain absolute integrity and has acted in a manner unbecoming of Council's emplyee, and thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to ICAR employees.
Article of Charge-II While functioning as Director, CIFA, Bhubaneshwar, Dr. P. Jayshankar spent an amount of Rs 61,500/- (Rupees sixty one thousand and five hundred only) out of Institute's funds for furnishing his residence. Being expenditure sanctioning Authority, Dr. Jayshankar exercised his powers directly for his own advantage, as a result of which an expenditure of Rs 2026.02.20 VISHAL 15:50:10+05'30' 2024.3.0 3 61,500/- was incurred in violation of Rule 21 of the GFR, 2005.
He refunded Rs. 26,260/- (Rupees twenty six thousand two hundred sixty only) to the institute when vigilance inspection was conducted by the Council during May, 2014.
By his above acts, Dr. P. Jayshankar has failed to maintain absolute integrity and has acted in a manner unbecoming of Council's emplyee, and thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to ICAR employees.
Article of Charge-III While functioning as Director, CIFA, Bhubaneshwar, Dr. P. Jayshankar sanctioned Rs 2,57,900/- (Rs Two lakhs fifty seven thousand nine hundred only) for purchase of Four Split AC's for his residence. Being expenditure sanctioning Authority, Dr. Jayshankar exercised his powers to his own advantage, as a result of which an expenditure of Rs. 2,57,900/- was incurred in violation of Rule 21 of the GFR, 2005.
By his above acts, Dr. P. Jayshankar has failed to maintain absolute integrity and has acted in a manner unbecoming of Council's emplyee, and thereby contravening the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as extended to ICAR employees."
2. The applicant denied the allegations. Not satisfied with the denial, the Disciplinary Authority decided to proceed against him invoking Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Inquiry Officer filed the Annexure A9 report. Though he noticed certain irregularities on the part of applicant as Director of the CIFA, found that the charges were not proved. However, the Disciplinary 2026.02.20 VISHAL 15:50:10+05'30' 2024.3.0 4 Authority was not satisfied with the report and disagreed with the findings and communicated the disagreement note to the applicant. The applicant gave his representation and ultimately Annexure A14 order was passed on 03.12.2019 imposing punishment of 'reduction to two lower stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with further direction that he will not earn increments during the period of reduction and after expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future incements.'
3. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred Annexure A15 appeal raising numerous grouds. Ultimately, by Annexure A20 order of the Appellate Authority, the punishment was modified to 'reduction to two lower stages in the time scale of pay for one year with further directions that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and after expiry of this period the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the further increments of pay.'
4. The O.A has been filed for setting aside Annexures A14 and A20, to issue necessary directions to the respondents to restore the pay reduced pursuant to Annexure A14 and disburse the amounts already recovered 2026.02.20 VISHAL 15:50:10+05'30' 2024.3.0 5 from salary with 18% interest and to grant pay and retirement benefits, untrammelled by the impugned orders.
5. The respondents filed their reply statement denying the allegations in the O.A. According to them, the matter was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in proper perspective and reached correct conclusion, it is liable to be sustained. So they prayed for dismissing the O.A.
6. The applicant filed a rejoinder reiterating the contentions in the O.A.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel in detail.
8. Sri. P.K. Madhusoodhanan, learned Counsel for the applicant is skeptical about the non consideration of the grounds detailed in Annexure A15 appeal. Even though the Appellate Authority had tried to reproduce certain grounds in Annexure A20, has not touched any of the contentions raised by the applicant in the appeal. Therefore, according to him, Annexure A20 cannot stand judicial scrutiny. He also wanted to impress us that the inquiry report was not considered properly by the Disciplinary Authority. Applicant as the head of the CIFA, Bhubaneshwar had occupied 2026.02.20 VISHAL 15:50:10+05'30' 2024.3.0 6 one of the two Quarters of Type V, since the other was meant to be used for ladies hostel. Secondly, it was pointed out that procurements were made following all the codal formalities and after obtaining approval from the appropriate authorities. He had also refunded an amount of Rs. 26,260/-. According to the learned Counsel, there is absolutely no allegation of any misappropriation or mismanagement of funds. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority had taken decisions without considering the contentions raised and the unblemished service records of the applicant.
9. Above all, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated on malafide considerations in respect of matters that have happened in 2012, long after in 2018-19. So, the entire proceeding is barred by limitation.
10. We are not entering into the merits of the rival contentions. But at the blush, we have noticed that a very detailed appeal, enumerating all possible grounds including bar under limitation, were urged by the applicant before the 2nd respondent. However, the 3rd respondent, on the strength of the Annexure A21 authorisation has passed a cryptic order, Annexure A20.
2026.02.20 VISHAL 15:50:10+05'30' 2024.3.0 7 To our utter disappointment, none of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum has been considered by the 3 rd respondent, which is patently illegal. Therefore, we are inclined to interfere with the Annexure A20 and quash the same. The matter is rermitted back to be considered afresh by the Appellate Authority after considering all the grounds urged by the applicant, after affording opportunity to the applicant for a personal hearing. This process shall be completed within 90 days from the date of reciept of copy of this order.
O.A is disposed of as above. No costs.
(Dated, this the 19th day of February, 2026) BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL JUSTICE K. HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER v 2026.02.20 VISHAL 15:50:10+05'30' 2024.3.0 8 List of Annexures Annexure-A1: True copy of the offer of appointment given to the applicant by the 4 respondent.
th Annexure-A2: True copy of the letter dated 9.10.2015 given to the applicant by the Deputy Secretary (P) Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
Annexure-A3: True copy of the Letter dated 7.4.2016 given to the applicant by the Deputy Secretary (P) Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
Annexure-A4: True copy of the letter dated 11.4.2016 of the applicant submitted before the 4th respondent.
Annexure-A5: True copy of the Letter dated 22.6.2016 of the Under Secretary(Per.) ICAR, New Delhi given to the applicant rejecting his request in Annexure-A4.
Annexure-A6: True copy of the Memorandum of Charges and imputation of misconduct given to the applicant by the 2nd respondent. Annexure-A7: True copy of the Written Statement of Defence submitted by the applicant to the 2nd respondent.
Annexure-A8: True copy of the letter dated 14.6.2018 referred to in Annexure-A6.
Annexure-A9: True copy of the Enquiry Report dated 22.3.2019 of the Inquiry Authority.
Annexure-A10: True copy of the Memorandum dated 6.6.2019 of the Under Secretary (Vig.II) ICAR New Delhi served on the applicant. Annexure-A11: True copy of the written brief date d 7.3.2019 submitted by the presenting officer to the Inquiry Officer. Annexure-A12: True copy of the statement of defence and counter to the presenting officer's brief, dated 11.3.2019 of the applicant submitted to the Inquiry Officer.
Annexure-A13: True copy of the written submission dated 20-6-2019 submitted to the 3rd respondent by the applicant. Annexure-A14: True copy of the Order dated 3.12.2019 issued by the 2 nd respondent imposing penalty on the applicant. Annexure-A15: True relevant extract of the Memorandum of Appeal dated 17.12.2019 submitted to the Appellate Authority.
2026.02.20 VISHAL 15:50:10+05'30' 2024.3.0 9 Annexure-A16: True copy of the Office Order dated 23.1.2020 of the Assistant Administrative officer in the office of the 1 st respondent, issued to the Applicant.
Annexure-A17: True copy of the Letter dated 25.1.2020 of the applicant requesting the 1st respondent to take necessary steps to withdraw Annexure-A16.
Annexure-A18: True copy of the representation dated 2.3.2020 submitted by the applicant to the appellate Authority through proper channel.
Annexure-A19: True copy of the representation dated 25.6.2020 of the applicant submitted to the 3rd respondent. Annexure-A20: True copy of the Order dated 20.8.2020 issued by the Under Secretary (Vig.II) ICAR New Delhi for and on behalf of the 3rd respondent.
Annexure-A21: True copy of the Office Order dated 13.7.2010 issued by the 4th respondent.
*****
2026.02.20
VISHAL 15:50:10+05'30'
2024.3.0