Disciplinary authority’s penalty cannot be quashed where the Supreme Court upheld its assessment.

A chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on 15 May 2001, followed by an order of dismissal dated 15 February 2005. The CAT set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter for a fresh enquiry on 15 March 2007.

After the fresh enquiry, the petitioner was again dismissed on 13 March 2010, and her appeal was rejected on 8 March 2011.

On 11 March 2016, the CAT directed the authorities to furnish the UPSC advice obtained against her.

The Supreme Court modified the relief and directed that the matter be referred to the Appellate Authority, rather than the Disciplinary Authority, for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings on 19 December 2015.

The CAT thereafter quashed the Appellate Authority’s order and remanded the matter with directions to supply the UPSC advice to the petitioner, permit her to make a representation, and decide the appeal afresh.

1. Whether the CAT erred by setting aside only the Appellate Authority’s order and by failing to quash the Disciplinary Authority’s order of dismissal as well?

2. Whether the CAT’s direction to furnish the UPSC advice and permit the petitioner to make a representation before fresh appellate consideration was legally sustainable?

The Court applied the binding directions of the Supreme Court in SLP No. 3831 of 2017, under which the matter was required to be referred to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, while the Disciplinary Authority’s assessment was not to be quashed.

The Court also applied the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, holding that the petitioner was entitled to receive the UPSC advice relied upon by the Appellate Authority and to submit a representation before the appeal was finally decided.

The High Court held that the petitioner’s contention was directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s order.

The Supreme Court had expressly found no infirmity in the Disciplinary Authority’s assessment and had directed only that the matter be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority.

Consequently, the CAT could not, and was not required to, quash the Disciplinary Authority’s dismissal order.

At the same time, the CAT correctly protected the petitioner’s procedural rights by requiring disclosure of the UPSC advice obtained during the fresh appellate process and by allowing her to respond to it before the appeal was reconsidered.

Since the remand afforded the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and caused no prejudice, the High Court found no ground to interfere.

It also upheld the CAT’s limited remand to the Appellate Authority, including disclosure of the UPSC advice and an opportunity for the petitioner to submit a representation.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with the CAT’s directions left undisturbed.