Recall of a procedurally defective penalty order permits fresh disciplinary proceedings on the same charges.

The applicant, a Program Manager with the Indian Red Cross Society, Tamil Nadu Branch, was removed from service on 15 May 2023 following disciplinary proceedings.

He challenged that order in OA No. 712/2024.

On 18 March 2025, the Tribunal recorded the respondents’ submission that the removal order had been recalled and disposed of that OA as infructuous, keeping the applicant’s contentions open.

The respondents’ communication dated 17 March 2025 withdrew the removal order, proposed a fresh inquiry, and stated that the applicant would remain under suspension pending its conclusion.

The applicant challenged that communication in this OA.

The Tribunal had granted an interim stay of the suspension direction.

Whether, after recalling the earlier removal order, the respondents could proceed with a fresh disciplinary inquiry, including by issuing a fresh charge memorandum.

Whether the applicant’s continued suspension pending the fresh inquiry could be maintained, and what consequential directions were appropriate.

The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court’s decision in W.P. No. 6979 of 2016 and batch (29 February 2016), which distinguished withdrawing proceedings with an intention to issue a fresh charge memorandum from dropping the proceedings; the former does not, by itself, preclude further disciplinary action.

It also referred to the general principle that suspension is an administrative measure, not a penalty, and that withdrawal of a defective or earlier charge memorandum to correct a technical error does not necessarily invalidate the suspension or bar a revised disciplinary process.

Applying the judicial-review standard stated in Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. Anilbhai Nathubhai Patel, (2006) 8 SCC 200, administrative action may be interfered with where it is illogical, procedurally improper, based on irrelevant considerations, or so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have reached it.

The respondents relied on Rule 5.4.3 of the IRCS Service Rules to support deemed continuation of suspension; the applicant relied on Fundamental Rule 54, but the respondents disputed its applicability because the Society was governed by its own service rules.

The Tribunal noted that the earlier removal order had been recalled and that the respondents proposed a fresh inquiry with an opportunity for the applicant to defend himself.

It applied the distinction between withdrawing proceedings to issue a fresh charge memorandum and dropping them, and observed that correcting or withdrawing an earlier disciplinary process does not, by itself, prevent further proceedings or invalidate suspension.

Rather than determine the merits of the charges or finally resolve the competing submissions concerning FR 54 and the IRCS rules, the Tribunal directed payment of subsistence allowance and timely completion of the inquiry, with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The respondents were directed to pay the applicant subsistence allowance until the disciplinary proceedings conclude and to complete those proceedings within six months of receiving the order, affording him a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The applicant was directed to cooperate; any interim order stood vacated. The connected miscellaneous applications were closed.