False imputations of illegal gratification against senior officers constitute misconduct warranting dismissal from service.

The Petitioner, a Law Officer at HUDCO since 1990, was suspended from 1997 to 2009 following criminal proceedings initiated by his wife

Upon reinstatement and posting to Jaipur in 2009, disputes arose regarding arrears and increments. The Petitioner filed an FIR (No. 318/2009) alleging that senior HUDCO officers demanded bribes of ₹1 lakh each to release his benefits

The police filed a closure report treating the matter as "civil in nature," which was accepted by the ACJM, observing that the complaint lacked specific details of the alleged bribe demand

Consequently, HUDCO initiated disciplinary proceedings under the HUDCO Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules for making false imputations

Despite notices sent via post and published in national newspapers, the Petitioner did not participate in the inquiry, leading to an ex parte report holding the charges proved

He was dismissed on 29.09.2011, and his departmental appeal was rejected on 06.02.2014

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) subsequently dismissed his challenge on 11.10.2018, which the Petitioner assailed through this writ petition

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the ground of lodging a false FIR were sustainable in law

2. Whether the ex parte inquiry was vitiated for want of fair opportunity or violation of principles of natural justice

3. Whether the Tribunal’s order was justified despite containing factual inaccuracies regarding the filing of a reply and the limitation period

The court primarily applied the principles governing judicial review under Article 226, stating that courts do not sit in appeal over departmental inquiries but interfere only in cases of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, perversity, or disproportionate penalty

The substantive charges were framed under Rules 4(1)(iii), 5(5), and 5(42) of the HUDCO Conduct, Discipline and Appeal (CDA) Rules

The court also noted the legal principle that while non-participation in an inquiry justifies ex parte proceedings, it cannot be elevated into substantive proof of guilt

The court found that the charge memorandum was legally competent because it targeted "false imputations of corruption" rather than the mere act of invoking criminal law

Although the criminal closure report did not explicitly find the FIR to be "knowingly false," the court noted that the Petitioner failed to substantiate his allegations during the inquiry or in his initial reply

Regarding procedural fairness, the court observed that HUDCO had issued repeated notices and newspaper publications; thus, the Petitioner’s transfer to Guwahati did not constitute a legal denial of opportunity

The court criticized the Inquiry Officer’s reasoning that non-participation implies guilt, yet held that the conclusion was supported by other documentary evidence and management witnesses

Finally, the court identified two "demonstrably inaccurate" findings by the CAT: (i) that the Petitioner filed no reply (he had), and (ii) that there was a three-year delay in filing the OA (there was not)

However, the court determined that after excluding these errors, the underlying disciplinary action remained valid

While it set aside and "effaced" the CAT’s erroneous observations regarding the lack of a reply and the delay in filing the OA, it held that the Petitioner failed to establish any violation of natural justice or perversity that would justify interference with the dismissal order dated 29.09.2011 or the appellate order dated 06.02.2014