AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)
The instant O.A. is filed seeking the following relief:
“In view of the above facts and circumstances the applicant herein pray that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for thee records pertaining to the 4" respondent Memo No.F6-1/2013-14 reviving the charge memo dated 21.11.2014, Memo.No.F6-1/2013-14 dated 24.09.2025 appointing inquiry officer and presenting officer and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and rules on the subject matter and law of the lands, and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
Highlighting the facts of the case, at the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the earlier round of litigation in OA/21/689/2023, the Tribunal vide order dated 31.01.2025, observed as under:
“14.The applicant has also interfered at all stages of the proceedings and the respondents have abnormally delayed correspondence with the concerned appropriate authorities. As per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the case should be finalised within six months.
15.The respondents are very casual in their approach knowing fully well that the charge sheet of the Disciplinary Authority dated 27.05.2014 has been replaced with the charge sheet of 21.11.2014. They did not bother to refer the fresh charge sheet to UPSC. The disciplinary case, which should have been finalized within six months as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, has taken more than 12 years and not yet finalized. The applicant is suffering due to this inefficient handling of the disciplinary case by the respondents.
16.The UPSC advice of withholding of 30% of the monthly pension for 5 years’ period and Gratuity to be released, if not required in any other case, is passed on the old Memo No.F6-1/13-14, dated 27.05.2014. The applicant has given representation on 05.09.2022. Without replying to this memo, the respondents, on realization of their mistake of referring a wrong memo to the both the charge memorandum are having same articles of charge, technically the UPSC should have been referred the ‘fresh charge’ memorandum. The respondents are directed to finalize the disciplinary case within one month of the receipt of this order and immediately release the Gratuity to the applicant, failing which the GPA rate of interest to be paid to the applicant till the date of payment.”
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the limited directions passed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. were to the effect that the UPSC advice was to be acted upon after the fresh charge memorandum, which had already been issued on 21.11.2014. The respondent authorities have, however, misinterpreted the said directions by observing that there is a procedural defect and directing a de novo enquiry.
It is not in dispute that pursuant to the earlier round of litigation, the original charge memo dated 27.05.2014 was quashed and set aside by the Appellate Authority vide Memo No. PMG(H)/ST/21-4/285/BMNR/NGD/14 dated 12.11.2014, and a fresh charge memo was issued on 21.11.2014. Inquiry was concluded on the fresh charge memo in which the applicant fully participated. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 24.06.2019 holding all six articles of charge as proved. The applicant submitted his defence representation to the Inquiry Report on 30.06.2019.
Based on the UPSC advice dated 08.06.2022, the respondents were required to communicate the same to the applicant, give him an opportunity to make a representation, and thereafter the competent authority was to act upon the Inquiry Report and the UPSC advice in accordance with law by applying its independent mind and passing appropriate final orders. This position was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana vide order dated 01.12.2025 in the Writ Petition preferred by the Union of India bearing W.P. No. 33728 of 2025. The relevant portion of the said Order reads as under:
“5.We feel that the stalemate with which the parties are presented can be best resolved by the learned Tribunal wherein different orders have been passed in respect of the subject matter of the same disciplinary proceedings on account of subsequent development that has taken place after passing of the impugned order dated 31.01.025. The petitioners may make appropriate application as may be permissible in law either for early disposal of O.A. No.1010 of 2025 or seeking clarification or modification or review of the order impugned. We do not make any comment on the merits of the case of the parties.”
Despite the aforesaid directions, the respondent Union of India have not chosen to move any M.A. seeking clarification of the order dated 31.01.2025 before this Tribunal. Instead, in their own wisdom, the respondents have acted upon a misinterpretation of the earlier order. The counsel for the respondents has relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, specifically emphasizing the purport of the order passed in the earlier round of litigation, on a presumption that it is upon receipt of the UPSC advice dated 08.06.2022. The applicant was given an opportunity by serving the UPSC advice upon him and he made his representation on 02.09.2022. It is pertinent to mention here that status quo was ordered on 15.10.2025 while issuing notice in the present O.A.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on a careful consideration of the factual matrix of the case, it is clear that in the earlier round of litigation it was categorically observed that action had to be taken on the basis of the fresh charge memo dated 21.11.2014. The question of de novo inquiry did not arise at all, in as much as UPSC advice had already been obtained on the concluded inquiry, the advice had been communicated to the applicant, and the applicant’s representation had been received. In the said circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered the Inquiry Report, the UPSC advice, and the representation of the applicant in a holistic manner and passed appropriate final orders.
Despite the above, the stand of the respondents in the impugned order proceeds on the premise that there is a lack of clarity in the earlier order of this Tribunal. The stand taken by the respondents cannot be accepted. It is alien to service jurisprudence governing departmental proceedings. There is neither any procedural defect warranting a de novo inquiry nor any clarification required from this Tribunal. All that was required was to proceed with the case subsequent to the fresh charge memo dated 21.11.2014, pursuant to which the inquiry had been completed, UPSC advice obtained, and the applicant’s representation received. The question of de novo inquiry was never contemplated in the earlier round of litigation, nor does it arise as of today. This is the settled position as of now.
In view of the foregoing, the impugned Memo No. F6-1/2013-14 dated 24.09.2025 is quashed and set aside. The respondents /DA are directed to take appropriate action on the basis of the Inquiry Report already on record, the UPSC advice dated 08.06.2022, and the representation of the applicant, and to conclude the proceedings by passing a final order in accordance with law within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Disciplinary Authority is bound to pass the final order within the stipulated time. In the meantime, the gratuity of the applicant shall also be released in accordance with law; failing which, the applicant shall be entitled to interest at the GPF interest rate.
With the aforesaid directions, the O.A. is disposed of. Pending M.As., if any, are also disposed of. No order as to costs.