Authorities must treat the service claim as a representation and decide it by a reasoned order after hearing.

The applicant, a Chowkidar (Class IV) in the Public Works (R&B) Department, was accused of being associated with Pramerica Life Insurance Company while in Government service. A show-cause notice dated 20 February 2025 was issued, followed by the applicant’s reply. He also tendered a resignation, which he claimed was submitted under mental stress, was not accepted by the competent authority, and was subsequently withdrawn on 17 August 2025.

On 22 February 2025, the respondents attached the applicant to the Divisional Office and constituted a preliminary fact-finding Enquiry Committee. The applicant alleged that the enquiry was conducted without supplying relevant material, examining witnesses in his presence, permitting cross-examination, or allowing him to produce evidence.

The Committee submitted its report on 25 February 2025, alleging that the applicant had been associated with the insurance company since December 2019 and had continued the association after entering Government service in March 2022. The Executive Engineer thereafter issued communication No. R&B Div/RW/6229-30 dated 25 February 2025, recommending action under the applicable Conduct Rules.

The applicant contended that no regular disciplinary proceedings, charge-sheet, appointment of an Inquiry Officer or Presenting Officer, or formal order of termination had been issued. He further alleged that, despite the absence of a formal order, he had been prevented from marking attendance and performing his duties.

During hearing, counsel for the applicant limited the relief sought and requested that the Original Application be treated as a representation and decided in accordance with law.

The respondents consented to disposal with appropriate directions, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

Whether the respondents could take adverse action against the applicant on the basis of a preliminary enquiry and the communication dated 25 February 2025 without initiating regular disciplinary proceedings under the applicable service rules and complying with principles of natural justice?

Whether the applicant’s resignation, allegedly tendered under mental distress and withdrawn before acceptance, retained any legal effect?

Whether the applicant was entitled to a direction requiring the respondents to consider his claims, documents, and defence through a reasoned and speaking decision?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved Government servant to seek redressal of service-related grievances.

The applicant relied on the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, particularly the procedural safeguards applicable to imposition of major penalties, including formal charges and a regular departmental enquiry.

The Tribunal also recognised the governing principles of natural justice, including notice, disclosure of relied-upon material, a reasonable opportunity to defend, and the opportunity to produce and challenge evidence.

The applicant invoked Article 311(2) of the Constitution, as well as Articles 14, 16 and 21, against punitive action without due process.

He relied upon Raj Kumar v. Union of India, Balram Gupta v. Union of India and J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India concerning withdrawal of resignation before its acceptance.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had ultimately confined his request to consideration of his grievances as a representation.

Since no final determination on the legality of the preliminary enquiry, the resignation, or the proposed disciplinary action was required at that stage, the Tribunal considered that keeping the Original Application pending would serve no useful purpose.

It therefore refrained from expressing any view on the merits and directed the respondents to examine the applicant’s assertions and supporting documents under the applicable rules and law.

The respondents were specifically required to associate the applicant, provide him an opportunity to present his defence and supporting material, and thereafter pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order.

Thus, the Tribunal preserved the applicant’s procedural safeguards while also preserving the respondents’ right to take lawful action.

It directed the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation, consider the applicant’s claims and annexed documents in accordance with the applicable service rules and law, associate the applicant in the process, and afford him an opportunity to present his case and defence.

A detailed, reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within eight weeks from service of a certified copy of the order and communicated to the applicant forthwith.

All questions of fact and law, including the validity of the preliminary enquiry, the resignation and its withdrawal, and any proposed disciplinary action, were expressly left open.

The connected miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.