Disciplinary action based on subjective interpretation of external educational regulations, absent evidence of forgery, exceeds departmental jurisdiction.

The applicant, a Data Entry Operator, joined the respondent Institute in 1992.

In 1995, with official permission and on approved leave, he appeared for the Secondary Examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board ("the Board") and passed as a "regular" candidate

In 2019, following a CVC complaint, the respondents investigated the validity of his certificate

The Board verified the certificate as genuine and clarified that the applicant was enrolled as a "regular" student under its 1964 Regulations

Despite this, the respondents issued a Major Penalty Charge Sheet on 09.12.2022, alleging that it was "physically impossible" for the applicant to be a regular student in Bihar while employed in Kolkata, and thus the certificate was obtained through fraud

The applicant challenged the charge sheet and subsequent enquiry notices

1. Whether the disciplinary authority exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating the interpretation of an external body’s educational regulations despite the body verifying the document as genuine

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings, initiated via a CVC reference, could be sustained without following the requisite vigilance reporting procedures and in the absence of a clearly identifiable service misconduct

The court primarily applied the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, specifically Rule 14 governing major penalty procedures

It relied on the principle that disciplinary jurisdiction is confined to service misconduct and cannot extend to adjudicating the internal eligibility norms of an external examining body

The court referenced Khagendra Nath Pal v. State of West Bengal, establishing that departmental authorities cannot independently question matters within the domain of competent educational authorities

Furthermore, the court applied the "Handbook for Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authorities, 2013," regarding the mandatory role of the CVC in vigilance-angle cases

The Tribunal reasoned that the Board is the ultimate authority for determining the status of its candidates. Since the Board verified the applicant's results and confirmed his "regular" status under its 1964 Regulations, the respondents had no legal standing to reinterpret those regulations to allege fraud

The court noted that the respondents failed to provide evidence of independent misconduct under the CCS Conduct Rules, relying instead on inferential assumptions about "physical impossibility"

Furthermore, the Tribunal found a procedural lapse: as the matter originated from the CVC, the respondents were required to submit an investigation report and seek advice before proceeding, which was not demonstrated

The repeated withdrawal and re-issuance of charge sheets, coupled with disputes over document inspection, indicated an improper "roving enquiry" rather than a focused disciplinary action

It held that once the Board verified the qualification, the respondents could not challenge its validity under the guise of a disciplinary enquiry

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 09.12.2022 and all ancillary proceedings

The respondents were granted liberty to take action only if independently sustainable material relating to service misconduct exists or to submit a report to the CVC as per law. Both OAs were disposed of with no order as to costs