CAT Upholds SEZ Officer’s 5-Year Pay Cut, Finding No Prejudice From Documents He Did Not Seek During Inquiry

The applicant, an Assistant Development Commissioner, was charged under Rule 3(1)(i)–(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, with providing contradictory information to Customs and Central Excise authorities concerning M/s Uni-Socks (India) Ltd. and altering or fabricating a second letter dated 30 May 2008, allegedly to influence duty calculations.

He sought, among other records, the in-principle permission for the unit to exit the EOU scheme and related note sheets, and argued that their non-supply impaired his defence.

The Inquiry Officer found the charge proved; the Disciplinary Authority reduced his pay by two stages for five years, with the specified effect on increments, and the Appellate Authority upheld the penalty.

The applicant challenged those decisions before the Tribunal.

Under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 3(1)(i)–(iii) requires a government servant to maintain integrity and devotion to duty and refrain from conduct unbecoming of a government servant; Rule 11(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 authorises reduction in pay as a penalty.

The Tribunal applied the principle that non-supply of documents or other procedural irregularity does not, by itself, invalidate disciplinary proceedings: the employee must demonstrate actual prejudice or a resulting disadvantage.

It relied on Union of India v. Alok Kumar, 2010 (5) SCC 349, and State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh (13 October 2022), as well as K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda, 2025 INSC 997, for that approach.

The Tribunal also referred to ECIL v. B. Karunakar and K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India on assessing prejudice in light of the circumstances of each case.

The Tribunal found that the charge concerned the applicant’s own letters and his handling of their copies, while the requested permission and note sheets were not shown to be material to his defence against that charge.

It also noted that the applicant had confirmed during the inquiry that he had inspected the listed records and did not require further inspection, and that he neither cross-examined the relevant witness nor raised questions about the requested documents before the Inquiry Officer.

Although the applicant referred to the documents in his defence, he did not establish how their absence affected the inquiry’s outcome or otherwise caused him specific prejudice.

Applying the prejudice-based natural justice principles in the cited authorities, the Tribunal held that non-supply alone did not vitiate the proceedings.

Finding no infirmity in the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld on appeal, it dismissed the OA as devoid of merit, disposed of any pending applications, and made no order as to costs.