SHYAM SINGH vs TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

1

Item No. 08 - Court 2

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi

OA No. 3285/2024

th
This the 18 day of August, 2026

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)

1. SHYAM SINGH
S/o Sh. Bal Ya Ram
R/o 258, Nirvan Mohhala,
Village, Kondli, Delhi- 110096.

2. YOGESH TOMAR
S/o Sh. Virender Pal Singh
R/o House No. 20, Street No. 1,
A-Block, Sant Nagar, Burari,
Delhi- 110084.

3. KHEM CHAND MEENA
S/o Kalooram Meena
R/o 11, Block-F, Delhi Govt,5
Officer Flats, Model Town-1,
North-West, Delhi- 110009.

4. NITESH ANCHAL
S/o Sh. Ram Avtar Anchal
R/o House No. 41/E,
Punjabi Colony, Near Rajdhani School,
Narela, Delhi- 110040.

..Applicant(s)

(By Advocates: Mr. Harsh Ahuja)

Versus

1. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Through its Pr.Secy-Cum-Commissioner (TPT)
Transport Department,
Enforcement Branch, Government of National,
Capital Territory of Delhi.
5/9, Under Hill, Road, Delhi- 110054.

...Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)

SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

2

Item No. 08 - Court 2

O R D E R(Oral)
Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)
The instant OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the
following relief:-
“a. Allow the present application with cost; AND;
b. To quash/set aside memorandum 05.08.2024 and show cause notice
dated 12.07.2024 and 18.07.2024. AND ;
c. To summon/ca ll for all records pertaining to Show Cause Notice
dated 12.07.2024 & 18.07.2024 and Memorandum dated 05.08.2024
issued to the Applicants. AND;
d. To initiate a de-novo inquiry/trial against the Applicants considering
all the necessary facts and all evidences on record. AND;
e. Pass any further order(s)/Pass any other or further
order(s)/directions which this Hon' ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the given facts and circumstances of the Case.”

2. The applicants have challenged the Show Cause Notices
dated 12.07.2024 and 18.07.2024 and the subsequent
Memoranda dated 05.08.2024, whereby disciplinary proceedings
have been initiated against them under Rule 14 of the CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
impugned Memoranda dated 05.08.2024 are not tenable in the
eyes of law, being in violation of Rule 14(3) and (4) of the CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965, inasmuch as the list of witnesses had not
been appended thereto. He submits that the applicants had
immediately approached this Tribunal and, pursuant to the
interim order dated 22.08.2024 passed by this Tribunal, the
disciplinary proceedings have remained stayed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the allegations against the applicants are serious in
nature. He submits that the respondents have now issued a list
of witnesses and are ready and willing to proceed with the
disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Rules.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants, however, submits that
although the respondents have approached the applicants with a
list of witnesses, the same has not been duly furnished to them.
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

3

Item No. 08 - Court 2

5. Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajit Singh , Civil Appeal Nos. 2049-2050
of 2022, particularly Para 10 thereof, which reads as under:-
“10. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above,
the findings recorded by the Tribunal as well as the High Court
quashing and setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority by applying the Doctrine of Equality is hereby
quashed and set aside. However, as the enquiry is found to be vitiated
and is found to be in violation of the principles of natural justice in as
much as it is alleged that the relevant documents mentioned in the
charge sheet were not supplied to the delinquent officer, we remand the
matter to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh enquiry from the
stage it stood vitiated, i.e., after the issuance of the charge sheet and to
proceed further with the enquiry after furnishing all the necessary
documents mentioned in the charge sheet and after following due
principles of natural justice. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed
within a period of six months from today.”
He submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where a
disciplinary proceeding suffers from a procedural infirmity, the
matter may be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to
proceed further from the stage at which the infirmity had
occurred, in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants, on the other hand, has
relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal
in OA Nos. 2998/2025 and 3000/2025, decided on 13.10.2025,
Relying on Paras 8 to 10 of the same, he submits impugned
charge memorandum is liable to be vitiated for non-compliance
with Rule 14(3)(ii)(b) and Rule 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as
the list of witnesses proposed to be relied upon by the
Department was not furnished along with the charge
memorandum. He submits that such requirement is mandatory
and is intended to enable the charged official to effectively
defend himself and cross-examine the departmental witnesses.
He submits that the Tribunal had relied upon an earlier
judgment of the Coordinate Bench in O.A. No. 1214/2025, Rajiv
Sinha v. Prasar Bharati & Ors. , decided on 30.05.2025, wherein,
on the same issue, the OA was allowed and the disciplinary
proceedings were interfered with for non-furnishing of the list of
witnesses.
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

4

Item No. 08 - Court 2

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
7. At the outset, it may be noted that this Tribunal, while
considering the prayer for interim relief, had examined the
provisions of Rule 14(3) and (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
and had observed that the list of witnesses was required to be
furnished along with the Memoranda. Since no such list had
been appended to the impugned Memoranda dated 05.08.2024,
the respondents were, as an interim measure, directed not to
proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings.
8. It is now the submission of the respondents that the list of
witnesses has subsequently been issued. Learned counsel for
the applicants, however, submits that the same has not been
duly furnished to them.
9. The Coordinate Bench, in OA Nos. 2998/2025 and
3000/2025 (supra), while dealing with a similar issue
concerning non-furnishing of the list of witnesses along with a
charge memorandum issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965, had quashed the impugned memoranda, while
leaving it open to the respondents to proceed against the
applicants in accordance with the relevant rules and law.
10. However, learned counsel for the respondents has placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Rajit Singh (supra), which, according to him, squarely covers
the issue involved in the present matter.
11. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the
aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench, to the extent it is
contrary to the law subsequently laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, would stand per incuriam.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajit Singh (supra) has held
that where a disciplinary proceeding is found to have suffered
from a procedural infirmity, the appropriate course is to permit
the Disciplinary Authority to proceed further from the stage at
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA

5

Item No. 08 - Court 2

which the proceedings stood vitiated, after following the
prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice.
13. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings have
remained stayed by this Tribunal for almost two years. In view of
the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the
considered view that it would be a fit case to dispose of the
present OA by permitting the Disciplinary Authority to proceed
further in accordance with the Rules from the stage at which the
procedural defect occurred.
14. Accordingly, the present OA is disposed of with a direction
to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the
disciplinary proceedings from the stage at which the aforesaid
procedural defect occurred, strictly in accordance with Rule 14
of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the principles of natural
justice. The respondents shall furnish to the applicants the list
of witnesses and other requisite material/documents in
accordance with the Rules. Thereafter, the applicants shall be at
liberty to file their defence within the time prescribed under the
Rules. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of 12
weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15. Needless to state, the interim order passed by this
Tribunal staying the disciplinary proceedings shall stand
vacated.
16. The OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
MAs, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member(A) Member(J)
/ss/

SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA