Manish Kumar vs The Comptroller & Auditor General Of India & Ors.

“(a)

Quash and set aside the impugned preliminary/fact-finding enquiry and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the nomination/appointment and continuation of Sri Altamash Gazi as Investigating Officers, on the grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias, violation of principles of natural justice, non-application of mind, procedural unfairness and want of demonstrable lawful authority;

(b)

Quash and set aside the Show Cause Memo dated 05.06.2026, including the allegation of "wilful insubordination" founded upon the Applicant's non-appearance before the Investigating Officer on 22.04.2026, and all consequential proceedings/actions arising therefrom, the said allegation being derivative of and founded upon the impugned preliminary process whose legality, competence and impartiality were specifically challenged by the Applicant;

(c)

Declare that no adverse or disciplinary action shall be taken against the Applicant on the basis of the impugned preliminary/fact-finding process or the aforesaid Show Cause Memo, unless and until the Applicant's foundational objections relating to jurisdiction, competent authority, bias, natural justice and procedural legality are duly considered and decided by the competent authority by a reasoned and speaking order,

(d)

Direct the Respondents to disclose and place on record the complete jurisdictional and foundational record relating to initiation of the proceedings, including the name and designation of the competent authority, the statutory rule/delegated order/circular conferring such authority, the approval/sanction, if any, for initiation of the proceedings, relevant file notings, orders relating to nomination/replacement of the Investigating Officers and other connected official records;

(e)

Declare that, if the approval of the C&AG of India or a duly delegated competent authority is mandatory for initiation of proceedings against the Applicant, no such proceedings can lawfully continue in the absence of such approval, and consequently direct the Respondents to discontinue the impugned proceedings if the requisite approval is not shown to exist;

(f)

Direct the Respondents forthwith to preserve, secure and produce the complete and original CCTV footage relating to the incident dated 02.02.2026, particularly the footage covering the relevant corridor/chambers and the period identified by the Applicant, and to furnish an authenticated copy thereof to the Applicant; and, if such footage has been overwritten, destroyed or is otherwise unavailable, direct the Respondents to place on record the applicable CCTV retention policy, relevant device/log records, details of the custodian and a reasoned explanation for non-preservation despite the Applicant's contemporaneous request dated 04.02.2026;

(g)

Direct the competent Respondent authority to consider and dispose of the Applicant's pending representations/objections, including those dated 24.02.2026, 28.02.2026, 04.03.2026, 23.03.2026, 06.04.2026, 21.04.2026, 13.05.2026. 09.06.2026 and 01.07.2026, insofar as they raise issues of jurisdiction, competent authority, bias, evidence and procedural illegality, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal;

(h)

Pending final disposal of the present Original Application, stay the operation and further implementation of the Show Cause Memo dated 05.06.2026 and restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive, adverse or disciplinary action against the Applicant pursuant thereto or on the basis of the impugned preliminary/fact-finding enquiry, and direct preservation of all relevant CCTV and connected records so as to prevent their destruction, alteration, overwriting or disappearance; and

(i)

An order directing the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent Nos. 5 to 14, in accordance with law, for the specific acts of misconduct, abuse of official position, collusion and colourable exercise of power pleaded in Paragraph XVIII of the present Original Application, and further directing that such proceedings be entrusted to an independent authority having no connection, involvement or conflict of interest in relation to the Respondents concerned. In view of the applicant's apprehension that Respondent Nos. 5 to 14 have acted in concert with Sri K. S. Murthy, the present C&AG of India, and the consequent reasonable apprehension that the ordinary departmental machinery may not afford an independent and impartial consideration of the matter, this Hon'ble Tribunal may further direct that the disciplinary proceedings be conducted under such judicially prescribed safeguards, reporting requirements and/or monitoring as may be considered necessary to ensure a fair, transparent and legally sustainable determination.

(j)

Pass such other or further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”