Disciplinary inquiry directed to conclude within four months, subject to employees’ cooperation and applicable rules.

The four applicants, employees of the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education/Institute of Wood Science and Technology, challenged charge memoranda issued against them under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, dated 19 February 2026.

They also challenged their suspension orders and successive extensions dated 19 January 2026, 17 April 2026 and 16 July 2026.

The applicants contended that although disciplinary proceedings had been initiated, the Inquiry Officer had not submitted the inquiry report despite the lapse of more than six months.

During arguments, the applicants restricted their request to a direction for expeditious completion of the disciplinary inquiry. The respondents had no objection to this limited relief.

1. Whether the Tribunal should quash the charge memoranda and the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

2. Whether the suspension orders and their successive extensions should be quashed and consequential benefits granted.

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to conclude the disciplinary inquiry and take it to its logical conclusion within a prescribed period.

The application was instituted under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal over service-related grievances.

The disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, governing major-penalty departmental inquiries.

The Tribunal applied the principle that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and administrative instructions and may be directed to be completed within a reasonable, time-bound period, subject to the delinquent employees’ full cooperation.

Since the applicants agreed to limited relief and the respondents did not object, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the charge memoranda or suspension orders.

The Tribunal noted the applicants’ assertion that the inquiry had remained incomplete for more than six months after issuance of the charge memoranda, but it did not examine whether the disciplinary proceedings or suspensions were legally sustainable on merits.

Instead, having regard to the applicants’ restricted prayer and the respondents’ consent, it treated expeditious completion of the inquiry as the appropriate relief.

The direction was framed consistently with Rule 14 proceedings and was made subject to compliance with the applicable rules and instructions, as well as full cooperation by the applicants.

The respondents were directed to conclude the disciplinary inquiry and take it to its logical conclusion in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions, within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, subject to the applicants’ full cooperation.

The joint-application M.A. and exemption M.A. were allowed, and there was no order as to costs.