Competent authority must decide pending departmental appeals by a reasoned, speaking order within three months.

The applicant, a Refrigerator Mechanic (Skilled) in the Military Engineer Services, was issued a charge memorandum dated 19 March 2021 under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, alleging misuse of an MES vehicle and sale of government diesel in the civil area of Silchar.

Although an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed under Rule 14, the applicant contended that no regular inquiry was conducted and that the charges were not proved.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed, by order dated 11 July 2022, the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale for three years, with denial of increments and postponement of future increments.

The applicant submitted an appeal dated 24 August 2022.

During the hearing, it was further stated that the applicant had submitted another representation/appeal dated 11 May 2023, which remained pending before the competent authority.

Whether the charge memorandum dated 19 March 2021, penalty order dated 11 July 2022, and speaking order dated 18 April 2023 were legally sustainable in view of the alleged procedural irregularities under Rules 14, 16 and 27 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Whether the pending representation/appeal dated 11 May 2023 was required to be decided by the competent authority by a reasoned and speaking order.

The proceedings were considered in the context of Rules 14, 16 and 27(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Rule 16 governs minor-penalty proceedings, while Rule 14 prescribes the procedure for major-penalty disciplinary inquiries; Rule 27(2) requires the Appellate Authority to consider the relevant aspects of the appeal and pass an appropriate appellate order.

The applicant also relied on Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 301, concerning the impermissibility of relying on preliminary fact-finding material as a substitute for a proper disciplinary inquiry where the charged employee has not been afforded the requisite procedural safeguards.

The Tribunal recorded the applicant’s challenges to the disciplinary proceedings, including the alleged absence of a regular inquiry, reliance on the Court of Inquiry and preliminary fact-finding material, the alleged misapplication of Rules 14 and 16, and non-compliance with Rule 27(2).

The respondents maintained that the proceedings had been conducted in accordance with law and that a reasoned speaking order had been issued.

Since it was brought to the Tribunal’s notice that the applicant’s representation/appeal dated 11 May 2023 was still pending, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to address that pending remedy first.

The Tribunal therefore did not conclusively determine the validity of the charge memorandum, penalty order, or earlier speaking order, but directed a reasoned and speaking decision on the pending appeal.

The Tribunal did not set aside the charge memorandum, penalty order, or speaking order and awarded no costs. Any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of.