Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Shashi Shekhar Priydarshi vs Defence on 9 July, 2025
1 OA 405/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00
00405/2020
Reserved on : 29.05.2025
.05.2025
Order pronounced on :
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MR. RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER (J)
Shashi Shekhar Priyadarshi S/o Shri Arjun Prasad Singh resident of
Mohalla Ram Nagar Gonawan, P.O., P.S. & District - Nawada.
Mohalla-
.......... Applicant.
By Advocate : Mr. J.K. Karn
-Versus
Versus-
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary
Secretary, Ministry of Defence.
South Block, New Delhi 110001
2. The Director General,
General Ordnance Factory and the Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board, Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, 10
10- A
S.K. Bose Road, Kolkata .700001
3. The General Manager, Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
Ordnance Factory Nalanda, Rajgir.803121
4. The Asstt. Works Manager,, Ordnance Factory Nalanda Nalanda
Rajgir .803121
......... Respondents.
By Advocate :-
: Mr. Deepak Kr., Addl
Addl. CGSC
ORDER
Per- Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (Judicial (Judicial)
1. Feeling aggrieved with the action/ inaction of the respondents, applicant filed the present OA for the following reliefs:
reliefs:-
"A. A. Memorandum dated 30/08/2017 issued by the General Manager Ordnance Factory Nalanda, Rajgir as contained in Annexure -A/1, A/1, may be quashed whereby the applicant has been 2 OA 405/2020 implicated in a motivated Disciplinary Proceeding under Rule Rule--
14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 965 and the same is being protracted since last more than 3 years to damage and ruin the future service career of applicant.
B. Order dated 18-06-2020, 2020, issued by the General Manager. Ordnance Factory, Nalanda, Rajgir Cum Disciplinary Authority, as contained contained in Annexure Annexure-A/2, A/2, as whereby instead of sending Inquiry Report to applicant, a fresh inquiry has been ordered by a fresh Inquiry Officer. C. Any other relief reliefs as the applicant is entitled and your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the ends of jjustice."
2. Brief facts of the case as ple pleaded by the applicant is an employee of Ordnance Factory Nalanda, Rajgir Rajgir,, and is deeply aggrieved by what he perceives as a deliberately prolonged and unjustified Disciplinary Proceeding initiated against him through a Memorandum dated 30/08/2017. This proceeding, issued by the then General Manager, has dragged on for more tha than eight years, and the applicant believes it was started with a clear intent to harm his future service career. The applicant maintains that the allegations are motivated and intended to tarnish his professional record. He strongly feels that he has been subjected subjected to this inquiry in retaliation, without regard for the foundational legal principle that no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden--Nemo sudden Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus.
3. The initial Disciplinary Inquiry reached its conclusion with the Presenting Officer submitting submitting his Brief on 22.11.2019, followed by the applicant's reply dated 30.11.2019. Despite these developments, instead of issuing a final order and concluding the 3 OA 405/2020 matter, the General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Manager Disciplinary Authority restarted the inquiry process from the preliminary stage through an order dated 18.06.2020. A new Inquiry Officer was appointed without supplying the Inquiry Report or issuing a disagreement note under Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. This course of action not only violates procedural norms but also reflects the arbitrary exercise of authority to procedural the detriment of the applicant.
4. The applicant had also been subjected to a criminal case, which was finalized in his favor. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the allegations made in the the Charge Memo are inherently flawed and lack any merit. Having joined service in July 2010, he claims to be well acquainted with the Conduct Rules and competent in his work. The initiation of another round of inquiry, particularly when the initial one had reached its logical conclusion, shows a motivated effort to delay justice and create administrative roadblocks in the applicant's career progression.
5. To exacerbate the matter, the newly appointed Inquiry Officer resumed the proceedings from scratch, even ffixing ixing the date of preliminary hearing on 08.10.2020--
08.10.2020--the the same date on which the applicant had been officially directed to appear for the LDCE examination in Kolkata. Despite prior approval from the Administration for his travel, the applicant was marked abs absent ent in the inquiry, indicating a deliberate attempt to harass him. He submitted multiple representations on 03/10/2020 and 15/10/2020, pleading for the inquiry to be dropped and for the restoration of his due 4 OA 405/2020 promotions. However, instead of acting on these requests, the Disciplinary Authority issued another notice directing him to appear again on 21.10.2020.
6. The continuous harassment through repeated summons and the unexplained delay in concluding the proceedings have had significant adverse effects on the applicant. No financial irregularity is even alleged in the case, yet the applicant remains deprived of promotions and career advancement opportunities. The prolonged inquiry has not led to any conclusive result, yet it is being kept alive without legal justification.
justification. The applicant asserts that under Rule 15(2), if the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings, a disagreement note should have been issued rather than restarting the entire process with a new Inquiry Officer. He has repeatedly submitted detailed applications requesting withdrawal of the Charge submitted Memo and his exoneration, but none have been addressed.
7. Given the persistent procedural irregularities and the apparent lack of substantive evidence, the applicant contends that the only purpose of continuing this inquiry is to harass and suppress him. He refers to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ministry of Defence & Ors Vs Prabhash Chandra Mirdha Mirdha,, which discourage such protracted disciplinary proceedings. In view of thes thesee facts and legal precedents, the applicant seeks relief through the instant Application, urging for the immediate setting aside of the ongoing proceedings.
5 OA 405/2020
8. The respondents have filed their written statement and on the grounds mentioned therein they have pprayed rayed for dismissal of the OA.
9. Respondents have submitted that the applicant, Shri Shashi Shekhar Priyadarshi, is a permanent employee of Ordnance Factory Nalanda and was issued a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for gross misconduct and violations of conduct rules. An initial inquiry was initiated by appointing an Inquiry Officer (IO) and Presenting Officer (PO), but the applicant raised allegations allegations of procedural lapse and bias against the IO. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Disciplinary Authority did not finalize the inquiry and instead ordered a fresh inquiry with new officers.
10. Despite this accommodation, the applicant ag again ain objected to the newly appointed IO and alleged bias, following which another officer was appointed to ensure fairness. The newly appointed IO issued five notices to the applicant, directing him to appear for the inquiry, but the applicant failed to coo cooperate.
perate. Consequently, the Vigilance Section issued a letter urging the applicant to participate, and the General Manager personally explained the rules and importance of cooperation during an official meeting.
11. The applicant's employment history shows he wa wass transferred on compassionate grounds from Grey Iron Foundry, Jabalpur, to OFN. After joining, he was frequently found absent from duty and also faced complaints of misconduct from colleagues, 6 OA 405/2020 including senior personnel. These incidents were documented an and d reported by his supervisors, leading to written warnings, but there was no improvement in his conduct, prompting further action by the competent authority.
12. In response to these repeated instances of misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority, after examining all facts, proceeded with the disciplinary inquiry as per CCS (CCA) Rules. The inquiries were initiated fairly, and the applicant's objections were addressed at every stage, including the replacement of IOs upon request. However, the applicant continued to to evade participation despite receiving appropriate directions.
13. The Disciplinary Authority considered all the applications submitted by the applicant and disposed of them appropriately through official communication. The actions taken were in compliance with with procedural norms and were neither biased nor discriminatory. The repeated attempts to delay or obstruct the inquiry proceedings cannot be justified.
14. Respondents have further reiterated that the charges against the applicant are serious, and the inquiry process is essential to ascertain facts. The inquiry has been conducted strictly under the CCS (CCA) Rules without any personal or ill intent. Therefore, there is no justification for stopping or setting aside the disciplinary proceedings, and the applicant applicant must cooperate with the inquiry to ensure a fair and lawful resolution of the matter.
7 OA 405/2020
OUR ANALYSIS
15. This Tribunal vide its interim order dt. 15.02.2021 has stayed the inquiry proceeding. The said interim order is still continuing.
16. The Disciplinary Proceeding Proceedings were initiated against applicant and charge memo was issued on 30.08.2017. Dur During ing the pendency of inquiry, the applicant has made certain allegations against the IO (Sh. Sanjay Kumar, JWM) and the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dt. 18.06.2020 18.06.2020 ordered to replace the Inquiry Officer and appointed Sh. I.B. Gupta, AWM as Inquiry Officer to conduct a fair inquiry.
17. Applicant has filed the present OA on 22.09.2020 and the Disciplinary Proceeding are got stayed w.e.f. 15.02.2021.
18. In the interest of all fairness, the Disciplinary Proceeding are to be concluded at the earliest earlies possible manner after following due procedure as per Rule.
CONCLUSION
19. On the basis of above discussion, OA is disposed of with following directions.
(i) The respondent authorities are directed to conclude the inquiry proceeding and the order of Disciplinary Authority i.e. the entire Disciplinary Proceeding within a period of six months (180 days) from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(ii) The applicant is also directed to co co-operate perate in the Inquiry/ Disciplinary Proceedings.
8 OA 405/2020
(iii) If the Disciplinary Proceedings are not completed within the said stipulated period (i.e. 180 days), then the Disciplinary Proceedings should be treated as dropped, as no extension of time to conclude the Disciplinary sciplinary Proceedings shall be given to the respondents thereafter.
(iv) All interim orders passed in the OA are merged in this final order and MAs are also disposed of accordingly.
20. As a result, OA is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[ Rajveer Singh Verma ] [ Kumar Rajesh Chandra ]
Member (J) Member (A)
du/-
DURGESH UTTAM Digitally signed by DURGESH UTTAM Date: 2025.07.09 16:18:43 +05'30'