VISHAL ACHARYA vs Indian Council of Agricultural Research

1 (OA No. 242/2023)


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CHANDIGARH BENCH

Reserved on: 23.09.2026

Pronounced on : 30.09.2026

OA No. 242/2023

HON’BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER(A)

Vishal Acharya, age 45 years, son of Late Sh. Ram Gopal
Acharya, presently working as Assistant Finance & Accounts
Officer O/o Director, National Dairy Research Institute,
Karnal, Haryana. (Group-B)
……… Applicant

( By Advocate : Sh. Rishav Sharma)


VERSUS

1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New
Delhi through its Secretary.
2. The President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi
Bhawan, New Delhi.

………Respondents

( BY Advocate : Sh. Mandeep Singh)

NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

2 (OA No. 242/2023)

O R D E R

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):


1. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant

under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act,
against the following:-
(i) Against Order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 vide
which while accepting the Review Petition of the applicant, penalty of
reduction of pay to a lower stage by five stages in the time-scale
of pay for a period of five years with further directions that he will
not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction
and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect
of postponing the future increments of his pay has been set aside
and instead penalty of reduction of pay to a lower stage by two
stages in the time-scale of pay for a period of three years and six
months with further directions that he will earn increments of pay
during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period,
the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future
increments of his pay has been imposed. A copy of Order dated
20.01.2023 received by the applicant vide Endst. dated 9.02.2023 is
enclosed as Annexure A-1.

(ii) Against the Charge-sheet dated 19.06.2018 issued by the
respondent No.2 being the Disciplinary authority i.e. President,
ICAR, New Delhi. A copy of the Charge-sheet dated 19.06.2018 is
enclosed as Annexure A-2.

(iii) Against the Inquiry Report dated 05.09.2020 vide which the Inquiry
Officer conducted the inquiry against the applicant as well as 7
Officers and submitted report and at page No. 333 of the common
report, it was accepted by the Inquiring Authority that there is no
role attributed to the applicant by processing the bills in the
Payment Section. However, despite recording that the aforesaid
finding, the I.O in the report dated 05.09.2020 tried to prove the
charge to the extent of proper supervision, monitoring and
remaining vigilant while performing his duties as AF&AO in the Audit
Section. A copy of the Inquiry Report dated 05.09.2020 is enclosed
as Annexure A-7.

2. The applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
(i) That Annexure A-1 dated 20.01.2023. (Annexure A-1) , Annexure
A-2 dated 19.06.2018 and Annexure A-7 dated 05.09.2020 be
quashed and set aside.
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

3 (OA No. 242/2023)

(ii) That the respondents be directed to restore the pay of the applicant
with all consequential benefits.

3. The Applicant joined the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR) as LDC on 01.09.1997 at NDRI, Karnal. He was
subsequently selected as Junior Accounts Officer in 2006
through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and
promoted as Assistant Finance & Accounts Officer (AF&AO) in
2009. Throughout his service from 1997 onwards, there was no
adverse entry or disciplinary issue against him except the
present controversy.
4. While working as AF&AO, the Respondent No.2, the Disciplinary
Authority served applicant with a charge-sheet dated
19.06.2018 (Annexure A-2) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965, alleging failure to properly scrutinize fellowship
bills, resulting in fraudulent payment of approximately Rs.1.41
crore from the NICRA Project to alleged fake beneficiaries.
5. The Applicant denied the allegations vide his reply dated
04.07.2018 (Annexure A-3) and also requested a personal
hearing, which was not granted. It is also significant that the
charge-sheet did not cite any witness in Annexure-IV, despite
Rule 14(3) requiring a list of witnesses by whom the articles of
charge are proposed to be sustained.
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

4 (OA No. 242/2023)

6. Vide Order dated 16.08.2018, Respondent No.2 decided to hold
common proceedings against seven officers under Rule 18 of
the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, following the procedure under
Rules 14 and 15. By separate orders of the same date, Dr. P.C.
Sharma, Director, CSSRI, Karnal, was appointed as Inquiry
Officer and Dr. Smita Sirohi, Principal Scientist & Vigilance
Officer, NDRI, Karnal, as Presenting Officer. The said orders are
Annexures A-4, A-5 and A-6 , respectively.
7. The Inquiry Officer conducted the common inquiry and
submitted his Inquiry Report dated 05.09.2020. Significantly, at
page 333 of the report, the Inquiry Officer accepted that no role
was attributable to the Applicant in processing the bills in the
Payment Section. Nevertheless, the charge was sought to be
established to the extent of alleged failure of proper
supervision, monitoring and vigilance while performing duties in
the Audit Section (Annexure A-7).
8. The Applicant submitted his detailed representation against the
Inquiry Report on 29.10.2021 (Annexure A-8) , raising, inter
alia, violation of Rule 14(23) of the CCS (CCA) Rules and
specifically dealing with the 17 observations made by the
Inquiry Officer. Despite the Inquiry Officer's finding that no role
was attributable to the Applicant in processing the bills, the
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

5 (OA No. 242/2023)

allegation of negligence was nevertheless treated as proved.
Representation dated 29.10.2021 is
9. Without duly considering all the grounds raised by the
Applicant, the Disciplinary Authority imposed, vide order dated
04.01.2022 (Annexure A-9) , the major penalty of reduction of
pay by five stages with postponement of future increments with
cumulative effect. The Applicant thereafter submitted an appeal
dated 14.01.2022 (Annexure A-10) , pointing out, inter alia,
that his case had not been properly considered by the Vigilance
Section before the punishment was imposed. As no decision
was taken, he submitted a further Review Petition dated
05.02.2022 (Annexure A-11) through the Director General.
10. Pursuant to the Review Petition, the Disciplinary Authority
reviewed the matter and set aside the earlier penalty, but
simultaneously imposed a fresh penalty of reduction of pay to a
lower stage by two stages in the time-scale of pay for three
years and six months, with increments during the period and
without postponement of future increments after expiry of the
period. The reviewing order is Annexure A-1 . The said order,
while setting aside the earlier major penalty, imposed a fresh
penalty without recording reasons for arriving at the reduced
punishment, which is one of the issues arising for consideration
in the present proceedings.
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

6 (OA No. 242/2023)

11. The respondents have filed a written statement wherein it has
been submitted that that the present Original Application is not
maintainable, as the applicant has challenged the Charge-sheet
dated 19.06.2018 ( Annexure A-2 ), Inquiry Report dated
05.09.2020 ( Annexure A-7 ) and Review Order dated
20.01.2023 ( Annexure A-1 ), but has not challenged the
original penalty order dated 04.01.2022 ( Annexure A-9 )
passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The respondents,
therefore, contend that the O.A. deserves to be dismissed on
this ground alone.
12. That the scope of judicial review is limited and this Hon’ble
Tribunal cannot act as an appellate authority or re-appreciate
the evidence. Reliance has been placed upon State Bank of
India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow, (1994) 2 SCC 537;
Secretary to Government, Home Department v.
Srivaikundathan, (1998) 9 SCC 553; Government of A.P.
v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, (2006) 2 SCC 373 and U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation v. A.K. Parul, AIR 1999
SC 1236 . It is contended that interference is permissible only
in cases of perversity, absence of evidence, procedural illegality
or violation of principles of natural justice.
13. That the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in
accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The charge-sheet
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

7 (OA No. 242/2023)

was issued on 19.06.2018, reply was received on 04.07.2018,
and the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed
on 16.08.2018. The Inquiry Report was received on
21.09.2020, in which the charges were held proved. The report
was supplied to the applicant vide Memorandum dated
14.10.2021, followed by consideration of his defence dated
29.10.2021, and penalty was imposed on 04.01.2022
( Annexure A-9 ).
14. That the respondents deny any violation of natural justice or
procedural irregularity. It is stated that the applicant was given
adequate opportunity to defend himself and to produce
witnesses. According to the respondents, the charges were
substantially based upon documentary evidence, including bills
and vouchers, and therefore the absence of witness evidence
did not invalidate the inquiry. The respondents further contend
that no prejudice was caused to the applicant.
15. That according to the Inquiry Officer, the applicant’s role was
principally in the Audit Section. The Inquiry Officer recorded
that the applicant had no role in the Payment Section and that
mistakes had occurred at different stages of processing of bills.
At the same time, the Inquiry Officer observed that the
applicant, being Assistant Finance & Accounts Officer, was
responsible for supervision of the Audit Section and keeping
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

8 (OA No. 242/2023)

watch over project-wise and head-wise expenditure. The
respondents further rely upon the applicant’s admitted role in 4
bills involving 11 pay orders out of 31 bills and 107 pay orders.
16. That the respondents defend the initiation and conduct of
common proceedings under Rule 18 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965, vide order dated 16.08.2018, stating that the
proceedings were initiated while Shri N.K. Jain was in service
and after approval of the competent authority. They also
contend that the applicant cannot challenge the findings of the
Inquiry Officer on alleged procedural grounds when, according
to them, no specific procedural irregularity or denial of
opportunity has been established.
17. That the original penalty dated 04.01.2022 ( Annexure A-9 )
was subsequently reviewed and reduced. The applicant’s
Review Petition dated 05.02.2022 was considered, pursuant to
which the penalty was reduced vide order dated 20.01.2023
( Annexure A-1 ) from reduction of pay by five stages for five
years with postponement of future increments to reduction by
two stages for three years and six months, with increments
during the period and without postponement of future
increments. The respondents therefore contend that the revised
penalty is proportionate to the misconduct.
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

9 (OA No. 242/2023)

18. That the respondents deny the grounds raised by the applicant
and maintain that the charges stand proved on the basis of the
material on record, the inquiry was conducted in accordance
with law, and no prejudice or violation of natural justice has
been established. It is accordingly prayed that the Original
Application, being devoid of merit and seeking impermissible re-
appreciation of evidence, be dismissed.
19. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder reiterating his stand as
has been taken in the Original Application. He further
submitted that the objection regarding non-challenge to
Annexure A-9 is misconceived, as the same stands merged in
the revisional order Annexure A-1 , whereby the punishment
was reduced. The applicant reiterates that the charge-sheet and
subsequent disciplinary proceedings are vitiated for non-
compliance with Rules 14(3) and 14(4) of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 , as relevant documents/witnesses were not
properly supplied and the procedure prescribed under the Rules
was not followed. The applicant relies upon the decision in
Rajnish Kumar vs. Union of India & Others and submits
that the grounds raised in the O.A. involve legal and procedural
infirmities and do not seek re-appreciation of evidence as an
appellate authority.
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

10 (OA No. 242/2023)

20. On merits, the applicant reiterates the averments made in the
O.A. and submits that the enquiry suffered from serious
procedural and legal infirmities. In particular, the respondents
themselves acknowledge that the Inquiry Officer found that no
role was attributable to the applicant in processing the bills in
the payment section where the fraud occurred , while
simultaneously holding him responsible to the extent of
supervision. The applicant had also informed the Comptroller
from time to time regarding shortage of funds and was directed
in writing to pass the bills, which fact was noticed by the
Inquiry Officer. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary and
Appellate Authorities were required to provide an effective
personal hearing, which was not afforded to the applicant.
Thus, the findings are contradictory and unsupported by the
prescribed procedure, and the proceedings from issuance of the
charge-sheet through the orders of the Disciplinary, Appellate
and Revisional Authorities, including Annexure A-1 , are liable
to be set aside, and the O.A. deserves to be allowed in the
interest of justice.
21. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have
carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
22. The learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:-
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

11 (OA No. 242/2023)

(i) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the charges against the
applicant could not have been held proved in the absence of any witness
to substantiate the allegations. It was contended that the complainant
was the first and foremost witness who ought to have been examined,
particularly when the allegations were founded upon the complaint.
Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 1999 (4) SCT 740 , wherein the
importance of examination of the complainant and the opportunity to test
the truthfulness of the evidence by cross-examination was emphasized.

(ii) Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, (1988) 4 SCC
619 , to contend that mere production or listing of documents cannot
establish the charge in the absence of witnesses, and that oral evidence
cannot ordinarily be treated as satisfactory unless it is subjected to cross-
examination. It was, therefore, argued that the finding of guilt recorded
against the applicant, without examination of witnesses and opportunity
of cross-examination, was legally unsustainable.

(iii) It was further submitted that the procedure adopted in the departmental
enquiry was contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of U.P. Vs. C.S. Sharma, AIR 1968 SC 158 , according to
which witnesses in support of the allegations are required to be examined
and the delinquent employee must be afforded an opportunity to cross-
examine them and to lead evidence in defence. On this ground, learned
counsel submitted that the charge-sheet and the consequential
proceedings were liable to be set aside.

(iv) Learned counsel next contended that the Inquiry Officer had failed to
prepare the Inquiry Report in accordance with the requirements of Rule
14(23) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was submitted that the
deficiencies in the Inquiry Report were evident from the defence
submitted by the applicant against the said report and that such
procedural violation vitiated the entire disciplinary proceedings. Reliance
was also placed upon the decision of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal
in Rajnish Kumar Vs. Union of India, OA No.1327 of 2014, decided on
11.09.2014 , wherein the proceedings were stated to have been quashed
for violation of the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

(v) Learned counsel further argued that there was also violation of Rule
14(3) and (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which prescribed the
procedure for initiation and conduct of disciplinary proceedings. According
to the applicant, such violation went to the root of the matter and
rendered the entire proceedings unsustainable.

(vi) It was next submitted that the Inquiry Officer himself had recorded at
page 333 of the Common Inquiry Report that no role was attributed to
the applicant. In these circumstances, according to learned counsel, the
finding of negligence against the applicant was contradictory and could
not be sustained. It was further contended that, even assuming
negligence on the part of the applicant, the imposition of a major penalty
was wholly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

12 (OA No. 242/2023)

(vii) Learned counsel also challenged the order dated 20.01.2023 , whereby
the Reviewing Authority reduced the earlier penalty of reduction of pay
by five stages to reduction of pay by two stages for a period of three
years and six months. It was argued that once the Review Petition had
been considered on merits and the earlier penalty had been set
aside/reduced after noticing the grounds raised by the applicant in
paragraph 2 of the order dated 20.01.2023 , no cogent reasons had
been recorded for imposing the modified penalty. The impugned order
was, therefore, contended to be arbitrary and unsustainable.
(viii) Learned counsel lastly submitted that the penalty would have serious
adverse consequences upon the applicant’s future promotional prospects.
The applicant had become eligible for promotion as Finance & Accounts
Officer and, thereafter, for higher posts, and his seniority position was
also relied upon, as reflected in Annexure A-12 . It was further argued
that the applicant had been subjected to hostile discrimination in
comparison with the other officers proceeded against in the same
common enquiry. While different and comparatively lesser penalties were
imposed upon the other officers, the applicant was subjected to a major
penalty despite the Inquiry Officer having observed that no role was
attributed to him. On this basis, learned counsel contended that the
punishment was discriminatory, disproportionate and liable to be set
aside.

23. To agitate his view point further, the learned counsel for the
applicant relied upon the following case law:-
(i) Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., 2009 (2)
SCC 570
(ii) Chamoli District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Raghunath Singh
Rana & Ors. 2016 (3) |SCT 89
(iii) Union of India Vs. Sushil Kumar Vashisht, 2016 (4) SCT 77
(iv) Union of India Vs. Kamla Devi, W.P. (C) 987 of 2014
(v) Surendra Prasad Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Patna
High Court), LPA No. 1220 of 2019
(vi) State of Bihar Vs. Surendra Prasad Singh (Supreme Court of
India), SLP (Civil) Diary No. 27790 of 2025
(vii) The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025
INSC 555
(viii) The State of Jharkhand Vs. Arun Kumar Singh (Jharkand High
Court), LPA No. 190 of 2023.
(ix) Judgement dated 13.05.2026 by CAT, Chandigarh Bench in
OA No. 434 of 2024
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

13 (OA No. 242/2023)


24. In Chamoli District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs.
Raghunath Singh Rana & Ors. 2016 (3) |SCT 89 , the
applicant specifically referred to para 19 of the judgement
which reads as under:-
19. The compliance of natural justice in domestic/disciplinary

inquiry is necessary has long been established. This Court has held
that even there are no specific statutory rule requiring observance of
natural justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary.
Certain ingredients have been held to be constituting integral part of
holding of an inquiry. The Apex Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping
Works Pvt. Ltd. V. Their Workmen reported in (1964) 3 SCR has laid
down following:-
“…..An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless (i)
the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the
changes levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are examined –
ordinarily in the presence of the employee – in respect of the chares,
(iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses
including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant
matter, and (v) the inquiry officer records his finding with reasons
for the same in his report.”

25. Whereas learned counsel for the respondents relied upon
the following case law:-

(i) Union of india Vs. P. Gunasekaran (SC), 2015(2) SCC 610

(ii) State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya
(SC)

(iii) Union of India Vs. Sameer Danyadev Wankhede (Delhi High
Court), WP (C) 1053/2026

(iv) Tara Chand Vyas Vs. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority
9SC), SLP (C) 3291/1997

(v) Allahabad Bank Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari (SC), 201792)
SCC 308
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

14 (OA No. 242/2023)


(vi) Rajinder Singh Kakkar Vs. UOI (PHHC), CWP No. 15080-CAT-
2004

26. We have considered the rival submissions and have carefully
examined the material available on record. The principal issue
which arises for consideration is whether the disciplinary
proceedings against the applicant and the penalty imposed
upon him can be sustained in law. It is well settled that though
the Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the
findings recorded in a departmental inquiry, judicial review is
permissible where the proceedings suffer from violation of
statutory rules, principles of natural justice, procedural infirmity
or where the findings are not supported by the material on
record.
27. In the present case, it is significant that the Inquiry Officer
himself recorded in the Common Inquiry Report dated
05.09.2020 that no role was attributable to the applicant in
processing the bills in the Payment Section, where the alleged
fraudulent payments were made. The finding against the
applicant was nevertheless sought to be sustained on the
ground of lack of supervision and vigilance in the Audit Section.
In our considered view, where the applicant was admittedly not
involved in the actual processing of the disputed bills, the
finding of negligence against him required clear and cogent
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

15 (OA No. 242/2023)

material establishing the specific supervisory lapse attributable
to him. Mere holding of a supervisory post, without establishing
the precise omission or failure on his part which facilitated the
fraudulent payments, cannot by itself constitute sufficient
foundation for imposing a penalty.
28. We also find substance in the applicant's contention regarding
the manner in which the inquiry was conducted. The charge-
sheet did not contain the requisite list of witnesses and
admittedly no witness was examined to substantiate the
allegations. The applicant was consequently deprived of the
opportunity to test the factual basis of the allegations through
cross-examination. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hardwari Lal , Modula India and State of U.P.
v. C.S. Sharma emphasize that where the charges are sought
to be established through evidence, the delinquent employee
must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to test such
evidence and lead his defence.
29. The principles of natural justice governing a
domestic/disciplinary inquiry have been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chamoli District Cooperative
Bank Ltd. Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana & Ors., 2016 (3)
SCT 89 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that an
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

16 (OA No. 242/2023)

inquiry cannot be regarded as having been properly conducted
unless the delinquent employee is clearly informed of the
charges, the witnesses in support of the charges are ordinarily
examined in his presence, an effective opportunity of cross-
examination is afforded, and an opportunity is given to lead
evidence in defence. These requirements constitute an integral
part of a fair disciplinary inquiry.
30. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, we find that the applicant's grievance regarding non-
examination of witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely by
observing that the case was based upon documentary evidence.
Where the allegations against the applicant were required to be
established by attributing negligence and supervisory failure to
him, the applicant was entitled to an effective opportunity to
test the evidence relied upon against him. The absence of such
opportunity assumes significance particularly when the Inquiry
Officer himself recorded that no role was attributable to the
applicant in processing the bills in the Payment Section.
31. Thus, the ratio of Chamoli District Cooperative Bank
reinforces the conclusion that the disciplinary inquiry must
satisfy the minimum requirements of procedural fairness and
natural justice. In the facts of the present case, the procedural
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

17 (OA No. 242/2023)

deficiencies, coupled with the absence of a specific and
substantiated role of the applicant in the actual processing of
the disputed bills, materially affect the sustainability of the
findings recorded against him.
32. The Inquiry Report also required consideration in the light of
the specific objections raised by the applicant in his
representation dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure A-8) . The
applicant had specifically pointed out the alleged deficiencies in
the report and the non-compliance with the requirements of
Rule 14(23) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The disciplinary
authority was required to consider these objections objectively
before arriving at its conclusion. The material placed before us
does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the applicant's specific
defence, particularly regarding the absence of his role in the
Payment Section, was dealt with by recording adequate
reasons.
33. We further find that the original penalty imposed vide
Annexure A-9 dated 04.01.2022 was subsequently interfered
with in review. Vide Annexure A-1 , the earlier penalty of
reduction of pay by five stages for five years with
postponement of future increments was set aside and a lesser
penalty of reduction by two stages for three years and six
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

18 (OA No. 242/2023)

months was imposed. Thus, the original penalty order
(Annexure A-9) stood superseded by the order passed in
review (Annexure A-1) . However, once the earlier penalty
was set aside in review, the authority was required to
demonstrate, by cogent reasons, the basis on which the
modified penalty was considered warranted. The order does not
adequately disclose the reasons for arriving at the particular
quantum of punishment.
34. At the same time, we are conscious of the settled position that
the question of proportionality of punishment in disciplinary
matters has to be examined within the limited scope of judicial
review. The Tribunal cannot substitute its own view merely
because another punishment may appear appropriate.
However, where the very finding of misconduct is affected by
material procedural infirmities and the evidence does not
establish the specific misconduct attributed to the employee,
the consequential punishment cannot be allowed to stand
merely on the ground that the disciplinary authority has
jurisdiction to impose it.
35. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly
the specific finding of the Inquiry Officer that no role was
attributable to the applicant in processing the bills in the
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'

19 (OA No. 242/2023)

Payment Section, the absence of examination of witnesses, the
objections raised by the applicant regarding compliance with
the mandatory procedure under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965,
and the inadequately reasoned order imposing the modified
penalty, we are of the considered view that the disciplinary
proceedings, insofar as they relate to the applicant, suffer from
material procedural and legal infirmities.
36. Consequently, the Original Application is allowed . The impugned
order dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure A-1) , Inquiry Report dated
05.09.2020 (Annexure A-7) and charge-sheet dated
19.06.2018 (Annexure A-2) , insofar as they relate to the
applicant, are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents
are directed to restore the applicant's pay to the position which
would have obtained but for the impugned penalty and to
extend all consequential service benefits in accordance with
rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this order.
37. There shall be no order as to costs.



(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)

ND*
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.10.16 15:31:04+05'30'