Procedural defects in disciplinary proceedings require continuation from the stage of defect, not quashing of proceedings.

The applicants, employees of the Government of NCT of Delhi, challenged show-cause notices dated 12.07.2024 and 18.07.2024 and charge memoranda dated 05.08.2024, whereby disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (“CCS (CCA) Rules”).

Their principal objection was that the charge memoranda did not include the list of witnesses required under Rule 14(3) and Rule 14(4).

On 22.08.2024, the Tribunal stayed further disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the list of witnesses had not been appended to the memoranda.

The respondents subsequently stated that a list of witnesses had been prepared and that they were willing to proceed in accordance with the Rules, although the applicants disputed that the list had been duly furnished to them.

The respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajit Singh, Civil Appeal Nos. 2049–2050 of 2022, while the applicants relied on contrary decisions of Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally defective because the list of witnesses was not furnished along with the charge memoranda, contrary to Rule 14(3) and Rule 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules

2. Whether the appropriate relief was to quash the charge memoranda or to permit the Disciplinary Authority to proceed from the stage at which the procedural defect occurred

3. Whether the interim stay of the disciplinary proceedings should be vacated and the respondents directed to complete the proceedings within a prescribed period

The Tribunal applied Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, particularly Rules 14(3) and 14(4), which require the disciplinary authority to furnish the material necessary for the defence of the charged employee, including the list of witnesses relied upon by the department.

The Tribunal also applied the principles of natural justice, including the employee’s right to know the evidence against them and to effectively defend and cross-examine departmental witnesses.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajit Singh, the Tribunal held that a procedural infirmity in a disciplinary enquiry ordinarily requires the proceedings to be remitted to the disciplinary authority from the stage at which the defect occurred, after supplying the requisite documents and following due process, rather than automatically terminating the proceedings.

The Tribunal treated the earlier Coordinate Bench decision in OA Nos. 2998/2025 and 3000/2025 as per incuriam to the extent that it was inconsistent with the later Supreme Court ruling.

The Tribunal accepted that the failure to append or furnish the list of witnesses constituted a procedural defect under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and had justified the interim stay.

However, applying Rajit Singh, it held that the defect did not require quashing the disciplinary proceedings conclusively.

The proper course was to restore the proceedings to the stage at which the defect arose and require the respondents to supply the list of witnesses and other requisite documents, thereby safeguarding the applicants’ right to a fair opportunity of defence.

Since the proceedings had remained stayed for almost two years, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to allow the Disciplinary Authority to continue the proceedings in accordance with the Rules and principles of natural justice, subject to a fixed timeline.

The Disciplinary Authority was directed to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings from the stage at which the procedural defect occurred, strictly in accordance with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and the principles of natural justice.

The respondents were directed to furnish the applicants with the list of witnesses and other requisite documents, after which the applicants could submit their defence within the prescribed period.

The entire exercise was to be completed within 12 weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The interim order staying the disciplinary proceedings was vacated, and pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.