Departmental proceedings must remain stayed until the employee’s pending appeal is decided and the decision served.

The applicant, formerly an Assistant Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, was prosecuted in a 2019 CBI case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was dismissed under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution; the Tribunal set aside that dismissal in O.A. No. 2295/2021 on 2 August 2022, while granting the respondents liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. He was reinstated on 22 October 2022 and retired on 31 October 2022

The respondents subsequently initiated departmental proceedings under Rule 8(2)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, concerning the same allegations. The applicant challenged the initiation, contending that Rule 8(2)(c)(ii) barred proceedings because more than four years had elapsed since the alleged incident. He also had a representation-cum-appeal pending before the Commissioner of Police

Whether the departmental proceedings initiated under Rule 8(2)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, could proceed despite the applicant’s contention that Rule 8(2)(c)(ii) barred initiation after four years

Whether the respondents should be restrained from proceeding with the inquiry while the applicant’s representation-cum-appeal remained pending

Rule 8(2)(c)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, was identified as relevant to the applicant’s objection that departmental proceedings could not be instituted in respect of an event occurring more than four years before their institution

The Tribunal also directed the competent authority to consider the pending appeal in light of that provision and Delhi Police Standing Order No. 7/2024 dated 31 December 2024

The earlier order in O.A. No. 2295/2021 had permitted disciplinary proceedings only in accordance with law

The Tribunal recorded the applicant’s limitation objection and the respondents’ reliance on the liberty granted in the earlier O.A. It did not determine whether Rule 8(2)(c)(ii) ultimately barred the proceedings.

Instead, given the pending representation-cum-appeal and the applicant’s challenge to the legality of the initiation, it directed the competent authority to decide that appeal by a reasoned and speaking order, expressly considering the Rule and the Standing Order. To preserve the position until that decision was made and served, the Tribunal restrained the respondents from proceeding with the inquiry.

The competent authority was directed to decide the applicant’s representation-cum-appeal dated 20 August 2026, preferably within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order, by a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents were directed not to proceed with the departmental inquiry until the appeal was decided and the decision served on the applicant.

No order as to costs was made