Disciplinary proceedings quashed; CVC advice is advisory, repeated inquiries after exoneration constitute harassment.

The applicant, Ramesh Kumar Nigah, was appointed as a Pharmacist (Superintendent Dispensary) at PGIMER, Chandigarh, following Advertisement No. 2/94 dated June 23, 1994, which required a B. Pharmacy degree with three years of experience in manufacturing injectables.

Although the applicant held an M. Pharma degree, he lacked the full three years of required experience, possessing two years and three months as a Pharmacist and two years and three months as a Lecturer in Pharmacy.

His application was scrutinized and he was selected by a duly constituted committee, with the approval of the President of the Institute, and he joined on February 2, 1995, and was confirmed on February 2, 1997.

Years later, in 2002, a show cause notice was issued questioning his qualifications, leading to a formal charge-sheet on July 15, 2006, alleging he lacked requisite experience.

The first Inquiry Officer, Shri Yatinder Chauhan, exonerated the applicant in his report dated September 12, 2007.

This exoneration was initially accepted by the President of the Institute on November 3, 2008.

However, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) issued a second stage advice on March 31, 2009, recommending major penalty proceedings against the applicant.

Subsequently, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare directed a re-inquiry on February 26, 2016, leading to a fresh charge-sheet on September 14, 2016, on the same allegations.

The second Inquiry Officer, Dr. Arnab Pal, also exonerated the applicant in his report dated March 12, 2018.

Despite two exonerations, the respondent No. 4 issued a show cause notice dated February 26, 2019, proposing the major penalty of removal from service.

The applicant was not supplied with the competent authority's dissent note or the second stage CVC advice along with this notice.

The applicant retired on April 30, 2022, during the pendency of the Original Application.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in initiating and reviving disciplinary proceedings against the applicant on the same set of allegations after two earlier inquiries had exonerated him and the findings of the first Inquiry Officer were accepted by the respondent No. 3?

2. Whether the impugned show cause notice dated February 26, 2019, proposing the penalty of removal from service, is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law?

3. Whether the challenge to the Office Memorandum dated March 31, 2009, is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the Original Application is premature as only a show cause notice has been issued?

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 governs limitation periods for applications before the Tribunal.

The CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 outline the powers of disciplinary authorities and the requirements for a fair disciplinary process.

The principle established in *Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad Vs. V. Karunakar*, JT 1993 (6) SC 1, states that denial of the Inquiry Officer's report is a denial of reasonable opportunity and violates natural justice.

The precedent set in *P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board*, 1991 SCC (L&S) 638, holds that unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings can lead to the quashing of charge memos.

The cases of *District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi* and *State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty* address appointments made in violation of recruitment rules.

The Tribunal found that the O.A. was not barred by limitation because the immediate cause of action arose from the impugned show cause notice of February 26, 2019, which gave effect to earlier advice, and the challenge to foundational proceedings was incidental.

It also determined that the O.A. was not premature, given the applicant had been subjected to repeated disciplinary proceedings on the same allegations for over two decades, and the show cause notice proposed a major penalty without supplying essential documents like the dissent note and CVC advice, violating natural justice.

The court noted that the applicant's selection was approved by the competent authority after due process, and his qualifications were examined at the time of selection, with no fraud or misrepresentation substantiated.

The Tribunal emphasized that subjecting the applicant to repeated disciplinary proceedings on identical facts, despite two clear exonerations by Inquiry Officers, amounted to harassment and abuse of disciplinary power, especially without showing new material for the second inquiry or the show cause notice.

The court highlighted the legal position that CVC advice is only advisory and cannot substitute the disciplinary authority's independent satisfaction, finding the reliance on CVC advice in this case to be mechanical and vitiating the decision-making process.

Finally, the denial of the dissent note and second stage CVC advice was deemed a violation of natural justice, depriving the applicant of an effective opportunity to represent his case.

The Tribunal concluded that reopening eligibility after 24 years of unblemished service and confirmation was arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The impugned show-cause notice dated February 26, 2019 (Annexure A-1) proposing the major penalty of removal from service, the O.M. dated March 31, 2009 (Annexure A-2), and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside.