Disciplinary Authorities Cannot Adjudicate Eligibility for Qualifications Validated and Verified by the Issuing Statutory Board

The applicant, appointed in 1990 as a Laboratory Attendant, obtained a matriculation certificate from the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB) in 1995 with prior permission from the respondents

Based on this qualification, she was promoted to LDC in 1997 and UDC in 2018

In 2008, the respondent’s Vigilance Wing verified the certificate and dropped allegations of fraud

Following a 2019 CVC complaint, the respondents issued a major penalty charge sheet in 2020, which was later withdrawn and replaced by a fresh charge sheet on 29.09.2023

The charges alleged that the applicant was ineligible to appear as a private candidate under BSEB Regulations due to her West Bengal domicile and employment status

Despite the BSEB confirming the certificate's genuineness and stating there was no state bar for appearing, the respondents proceeded to issue a final order on 20.01.2025, reverting the applicant to the lower post of Laboratory Assistant

1. Whether the disciplinary authority has the jurisdiction to independently adjudicate the eligibility conditions and examination norms of an external statutory Board after that Board has verified the qualification

2. Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings after a delay of nearly three decades, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, is legally sustainable

3. Whether the order of reversion dated 20.01.2025 was a reasoned and speaking order in compliance with the principles of natural justice and Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, specifically Rule 14 regarding the procedure for imposing major penalties

Statement detailing the principle that disciplinary proceedings must rest on legally sustainable evidence of identifiable misconduct under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, rather than suspicion, as held in Union of India v. J. Ahmed

Departmental authorities cannot "sit in appeal" or enlarge their jurisdiction to adjudicate matters belonging to an external educational authority, as established in Khagendra Nath Pal v. State of West Bengal

The requirement for quasi-judicial orders to be "reasoned and speaking" was based on the DoPT OM dated 13.07.1981

The Tribunal found that once the BSEB (the competent authority) verified the applicant’s certificate and clarified that there was no "domicile bar" for the 1995 examination, the matter of the qualification's validity was concluded

The respondents exceeded their jurisdiction by conducting a "roving and fishing enquiry" into BSEB’s internal regulations, which falls outside the scope of the CCS (CCA) Rules

The Tribunal noted the "extraordinary delay" of 30 years and pointed out that the respondents had granted prior permission and sanctioned leave for the exam, meaning no fraud could be attributed to the applicant

The Tribunal further observed that the respondents failed to provide a reasoned analysis in the reversion order, ignoring the previous 2008 vigilance clearance and the BSEB’s 2020 verification

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 29.09.2023 and the consequential Reversion Order dated 20.01.2025. The respondents were directed to restore the applicant to her post as Upper Division Clerk with all consequential service benefits within twelve weeks