Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana on 22 November, 2006
32. In matter of discipline the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and in matters of appeal the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time and aplicable to the Central Government employees shall apply mutates mutandis to the employees of the Agency.
The advertisement was issued in July 2007. The sanction for payment was obtained on 15.07.2008, as seen from the copy of the note sheet placed at page 125. The Memorandum of Charge has been issued on 11.08.2010, after about two years of the incident. Although it was contended by the Applicant that the Minister in-charge of the Ministry had directed on 7.07.2008 that an enquiry in the matter should be made and completed within two weeks, as has been stated in the paragraph 5(VII) of the OA, but no documents to support the above contention have been placed on record. Moreover, the Applicant has also not shown how he has been prejudiced by this delay. Interference by the Tribunal with the Memorandum of Charge on grounds of delay would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Normally the Tribunal should not interfere with the Memorandum of Charge, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Kunnisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCC 28. The Applicant had to show how he was prejudiced by this delay, about which there is not a whisper in the pleadings.