Disciplinary challenge withdrawn after clarification that the impugned memorandum constitutes a preliminary notice, not a formal charge sheet.

The applicant, a Senior Statistical Officer in the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, filed an Original Application (OA) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

He challenged a Memorandum dated 12.09.2023, which he characterized as an impugned charge sheet, along with sexual harassment complaints from 2021 and 2022

He further sought to quash orders denying him a defense assistant and raised allegations of statutory delay and bias

An interim stay on the proceedings was granted on 07.11.2023

During the pendency of the matter, the respondents moved a Miscellaneous Application (MA) to vacate the stay, clarifying that the impugned memorandum was not a formal charge sheet but a notice to submit a written defense and appear for a hearing before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)

1. Whether the Memorandum dated 12.09.2023 constituted a formal charge sheet or a preliminary notice for an ICC inquiry

2. Whether the OA was maintainable before the Principal Bench of the CAT in light of territorial jurisdiction objections

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to the reliefs sought given the respondents' clarification of the nature of the impugned document

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

It applied the procedural principle that if a challenged administrative action is clarified by the state as being preliminary/non-final (specifically, a notice rather than a formal charge sheet), and the petitioner chooses not to press the matter based on that clarification, the petition may be disposed of with liberty to pursue departmental remedies

The respondents contended that the Memorandum dated 12.09.2023 was merely a notice under Para 2 of the document, directing the applicant to submit a written statement of defense within ten days and attend a personal hearing before the ICC at Thiruvananthapuram

They also raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Bench

The applicant’s counsel, noting the respondents' categorical statement that the memorandum was not a formal charge sheet, stated he would not press the OA

The Tribunal accepted this submission, noting that the applicant's primary grievance regarding the immediate legal effect of the "charge sheet" was mitigated by the respondents' clarification, thereby rendering the challenge to the specific memorandum premature or unnecessary at this stage

It granted the applicant liberty to agitate his grievances before the Disciplinary Authority in accordance with the law

The interim order dated 07.11.2023 was vacated, and the Miscellaneous Application was disposed of with no order as to costs