Failure to stay inquiry upon bias petition and procedural violations in appeal vitiate departmental proceedings.

The Applicant, an Upper Division Clerk at the Respondent Institute, was placed under suspension on 28.02.2018

A charge memorandum was served on him on 21.08.2018, approximately five months after the initial suspension, alleging unauthorized access and sharing of e-office files

During the disciplinary inquiry, the Applicant moved multiple petitions alleging bias against the Inquiring Authority (3rd Respondent) and requested the assistance of Dr. E.V. Prakash Rao as a Defense Assistant

The Inquiry Officer (IO) continued the proceedings despite the pending bias petitions, and the request for the specific Defense Assistant was rejected by the Competent Authority in a cryptic manner

On 03.07.2019, the Disciplinary Authority (1st Respondent) imposed the penalty of "compulsory retirement"

The Applicant’s appeal was subsequently rejected on 11.05.2020 via an order signed by the same official (Director General) who acted as the Disciplinary Authority, albeit in his capacity as Member-Secretary of the Executive Council

The Applicant challenged these orders as being in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory rules.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by the Disciplinary Authority’s involvement in the appellate process

2. Whether the Inquiry Officer committed a procedural illegality by failing to stay proceedings during the pendency of bias petitions

3. Whether the denial of the Applicant’s choice of Defense Assistant without following prescribed procedures violated the principles of natural justice

4. Whether the Applicant's suspension beyond 90 days without the service of a charge sheet was legally sustainable

The court applied the National Institute of Rural Development Service Bye-laws, which adopt the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965

It relied on Rule 14(21) of the CCS (CCA) Rules and DoP OM dated 09.11.1972, which mandate the stay of inquiry proceedings upon the filing of a bias petition against the Inquiry Officer

The court further applied the principle of nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (no one should be a judge in their own cause), citing Wasi Ahmad v. State of UP and A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India

Regarding suspension, the court applied the precedent from Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, which stipulates that suspension cannot extend beyond 90 days if a charge sheet is not served within that period

The Tribunal found several terminal procedural lapses.

First, it noted that the Director General, having issued the original penalty, should have recused himself from the appellate deliberations to avoid the apprehension of bias, as the appellate order was issued under his signature

Second, the IO violated Rule 14(21) of the CCS (CCA) Rules by continuing to record witness statements while bias petitions were pending, rather than staying the proceedings for review by the appropriate authority

Third, the rejection of the Applicant’s Defense Assistant was handled improperly; under DoPT OM dated 29.04.1986, the IO was required to record written reasons and allow the Applicant to represent the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, which was not done

Finally, the Tribunal held that since the charge memo was served 171 days after suspension—well beyond the 90-day limit mandated by Ajay Kumar Choudhary—the extension of suspension was illegal

It quashed and set aside the penalty order dated 03.07.2019 and the appellate order dated 11.05.2020

The Respondents were directed to reinstate the Applicant immediately (provided he had not reached superannuation) and treat the suspension period beyond the initial 90 days as "on duty"

The Respondents were granted liberty to conduct a de novo inquiry from the stage of the charge memo dated 17.08.2018, ensuring strict adherence to procedural rules

No order as to costs was made