Charge memorandum issued by an unauthorized disciplinary authority is liable to be quashed.

The applicant, an Assistant Engineer Grade-I in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), was served with a charge memorandum dated 10.02.2016 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, containing six articles of charge concerning alleged irregularities in construction work undertaken while he was posted at Frontier Headquarters, SSB, Siliguri

The memorandum was issued by the Assistant Director (Pers-I), although the applicant contended that the Director General, SSB was his appointing and disciplinary authority

The applicant denied the charges. An Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 06.09.2016, and a joint inquiry was conducted against the applicant and another officer. The Inquiry Officer’s report dated 18.09.2019 held all charges against the applicant to be “not proved”

The Director General subsequently issued a disagreement note dated 31.07.2020. The applicant submitted his representation on 05.11.2021, but no final disciplinary order was communicated to him

During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant’s case for promotion to Executive Engineer was kept in sealed cover in the DPCs held for the relevant vacancy years. Several officers junior to him were promoted, including on 05.12.2018 and 19.02.2021

The applicant therefore sought quashing of the charge memorandum and disagreement proceedings, opening and acting upon the sealed-cover recommendation, and consideration for ad hoc promotion under the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992

The respondents maintained that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated with the approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs and on the basis of Central Vigilance Commission advice, and that the inquiry report had been processed with the disagreement note for consideration by the competent authority

1. Whether the charge memorandum dated 10.02.2016 was legally valid when it was issued by the Assistant Director (Pers-I), allegedly not being the competent disciplinary authority, and without proper initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

2. Whether the prolonged delay in conducting and concluding the disciplinary proceedings, particularly when the Inquiry Officer had found all charges not proved, warranted quashing of the charge memorandum and subsequent proceedings

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration of the sealed-cover DPC recommendation and to consideration for ad hoc promotion as his juniors had been promoted during the pendency of the proceedings

The Tribunal applied Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which governs the initiation and conduct of major-penalty disciplinary proceedings, and Rule 18 concerning joint proceedings against multiple government servants

It relied on the principle that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by, or under the authority of, the competent disciplinary authority and that an employee should not suffer because of procedural lapses attributable to the department

The Tribunal also invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636, which recognises that unexplained and inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings may cause prejudice to the employee and justify judicial interference

The Tribunal referred to the DoPT O.M. dated 14.09.1992 concerning ad hoc promotion where an employee’s regular promotion is deferred because of pending disciplinary proceedings

The sealed-cover procedure governing consideration of promotion during pending disciplinary proceedings was also applied

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a Group B employee and that, according to its assessment, the Director General, SSB was his appointing and disciplinary authority. Nevertheless, the charge memorandum had been issued by the Assistant Director (Pers-I), who was not shown to be the competent disciplinary authority

The Tribunal further noted that the memorandum stated that it was issued “by order and in the name of the President,” although the President was not the applicant’s disciplinary authority

These defects were treated as substantive procedural irregularities in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal also considered the unexplained delay: the charge memorandum was issued in February 2016, the Inquiry Officer was appointed in September 2016, the inquiry report was prepared in September 2019, and it was communicated to the applicant only in October 2021. Despite the disagreement note and the applicant’s representation, no final disciplinary decision had been communicated by the date of the order

Applying the principle in P.V. Mahadevan, the Tribunal held that the applicant could not be made to suffer for the respondents’ prolonged delay and procedural lapses, particularly when the Inquiry Officer had found all charges not proved

Since the disciplinary proceedings were invalidated, the continued withholding of the applicant’s promotion on the basis of those proceedings could not be sustained; accordingly, the sealed-cover recommendation and the possibility of ad hoc promotion required consideration

The respondents were directed to act upon the sealed-cover recommendation of the DPC dated 25.10.2018 concerning the applicant’s promotion to Executive Engineer

They were also directed to consider the applicant for ad hoc promotion to Executive Engineer in the next DPC, in accordance with the Fax Message dated 13.12.2022 and the DoPT O.M. dated 14.09.1992, if he was otherwise found suitable

M.A. No. 040/00047/2024 was disposed of, with no order as to costs.