Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is premature before the passing of a final order.

The applicant, a Superintendent in the CGST and Central Excise, was served a charge memorandum dated March 2, 2021, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

It was alleged that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification for processing GST refund claims, specifically receiving ₹10,000 via online transfer to his nephew’s account.

An Inquiry Officer (IO) was appointed, and during the proceedings, the applicant’s request for a change of IO on grounds of bias was rejected by the Disciplinary Authority (DA).

The IO’s report, dated March 22, 2022, concluded that the charge of online bribery was proved by a preponderance of probabilities, while the charge of cash acceptance was not proved.

The applicant challenged the charge sheet, the IO report, and the DA’s refusal to change the IO, alleging procedural lapses, inordinate delay, and a lack of evidence.

1. Whether interference by the Tribunal is warranted at an intermediate stage of disciplinary proceedings when the Inquiry Report has been submitted but no final order has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

2. Whether the grounds urged by the applicant—including procedural irregularities, bias, vagueness of charges, and lack of evidence—must be considered by the Disciplinary Authority in the first instance rather than the Tribunal.

Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which outline the procedure for departmental inquiries and the subsequent actions to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority upon receiving an inquiry report.

The precedent in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006), which established that judicial review against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice is premature as it does not infringe rights until a final adverse order is passed.

The court cited Prabhash Chandra Mirdha v. State of Rajasthan (2012) to affirm that a charge-sheet should only be quashed in rare, exceptional cases involving a total lack of jurisdiction or patent illegality.

The Tribunal reasoned that the disciplinary proceedings were still incomplete and had not attained finality under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as the Disciplinary Authority had yet to consider the applicant's representation and the IO's findings.

The court observed that the applicant’s challenges—such as the non-examination of a key witness (Shri Sapan Shah), the admissibility of uncertified WhatsApp records under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and alleged bias—pertain to the appreciation of evidence and merits of the inquiry.

Under the scope of judicial review defined in Union of India v. Pranab Kumar Nath (2025), a Tribunal cannot act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence at an interlocutory stage.

The Tribunal concluded that interfering at this juncture would pre-empt the statutory process and that the applicant has an efficacious remedy to raise all legal and factual objections directly before the Disciplinary Authority.

The Tribunal vacated the interim stay order dated April 25, 2023, which had restrained the DA from passing a final order.

The OA was disposed of with directions granting the applicant liberty to file a comprehensive representation against the Inquiry Report within four weeks.

The Disciplinary Authority was directed to consider said representation objectively and pass a reasoned, speaking order within eight weeks thereafter.

The Tribunal clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.