Non-compliance with Rule 14(18) and reliance on extraneous grounds vitiate departmental inquiry and dismissal.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant, was served a charge memo on February 26, 2015, alleging he acquired and disposed of nine immovable properties in his wife’s name between 2006 and 2014 without prior sanction or reporting to the prescribed authority, violating Rule 18 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Following an inquiry, the Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted a report on November 28, 2016, finding the charges proved.

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) dismissed the applicant from service on February 1, 2017.

The Appellate Authority (AA) rejected the applicant’s statutory appeal on June 29, 2017, citing that the property values far exceeded his wife's known income sources.

The applicant challenged these orders before the Tribunal, alleging procedural irregularities and the introduction of extraneous charges.

1. Whether the Inquiry Officer’s report was legally sustainable given that it shifted the burden of proof onto the applicant to prove his innocence.

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

3. Whether the Appellate Authority’s order was based on extraneous considerations not included in the original Article of Charges.

Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which mandatorily requires the Inquiring Authority to question the government servant on the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence if the servant has not examined themselves.

The precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Union of India Ors. v. Om Prakash Verma (W.P.(C) No. 16919/2025), which affirmed that compliance with Rule 14(18) is a mandatory procedural requirement.

Rule 18 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, regarding the reporting of immovable property transactions.

The Tribunal found the IO’s report contradictory; while the IO noted that property valuation and income tax issues were irrelevant to the charge of "non-reporting," he ultimately held the charges proved because the applicant failed to provide proof of prior departmental permission.

This effectively shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the applicant.

Furthermore, the Tribunal observed a fatal procedural lapse: since the applicant did not examine himself, the IO was legally bound under Rule 14(18) to question him on incriminating evidence, which the record showed was not done.

Finally, the Tribunal held that the Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by confirming the penalty based on allegations of "disproportionate assets" and "unknown sources of income"—allegations that were never part of the original Article of Charges.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits within eight weeks.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents liberty to resume the departmental proceedings from the stage of the closure of prosecution evidence, provided they comply with the relevant rules and law.