Show Cause Notice for Enhanced Penalty Must Specify Proposed Punishment to Afford Effective Defence.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant, was placed under suspension on 23.08.2010, which was later revoked on 29.09.2011.

Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, were initiated against him for irregularities, including making payments to fictitious persons and fraudulent transactions.

An inquiry report, holding the charges proved, was supplied to the applicant on 31.03.2014.

The Disciplinary Authority initially imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for one year without cumulative effect on 22.04.2014.

The Appellate Authority, invoking Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, issued a show cause notice on 07.08.2014, proposing an enhancement of the penalty.

The applicant replied to the show cause notice on 03.09.2014, specifically raising an objection that the proposed enhanced penalty had not been specified.

Despite this objection, the Appellate Authority, via order dated 02.12.2014, modified the punishment to removal from service.

This order was affirmed by the Revisional Authority on 28.10.2016.

The applicant filed the present Original Application challenging these orders, also stating that he had since superannuated.

The applicant did not challenge the disciplinary authority's order or the inquiry report through an appeal.

1. Whether the show cause notice issued by the Appellate Authority under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, proposing an enhancement of penalty, was valid despite not specifying the exact proposed punishment.

2. Whether the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 02.12.2014 and the Revisional Authority dated 28.10.2016, imposing removal from service, are sustainable in the eyes of law.

3. Whether the inquiry report, accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, can be quashed when the applicant did not file a departmental appeal against the Disciplinary Authority's order.

The court primarily applied Rule 29 and Rule 27 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which mandate issuing a show cause notice and affording an opportunity to represent against proposed enhancement of penalty, emphasizing the necessity of specifying the exact proposed punishment in the notice.

It relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in *Hukum Chand Malhotra v. Union of India*, AIR 1959 Supreme Court 536, which held that mentioning the exact proposed punishment provides the fullest opportunity for a comprehensive representation.

The court also cited *K. Rajaiah v. The High Court for the State of Telangana*, Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2026, on the need for caution and circumspection with grave charges.

The Tribunal analyzed that while the Appellate Authority had the power to enhance the penalty under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the show cause notice dated 07.08.2014 was defective because it merely indicated the intention to enhance punishment but did not disclose the specific (exact) proposed penalty.

This omission, coupled with the lack of reasons for proposing enhancement and discussion of evidence, rendered the notice vague and violated the mandatory requirement for a proper application of mind by the punishing authority.

The Tribunal noted that without knowing the exact proposed punishment, the delinquent employee, Mahaveer Singh, was hindered from effectively presenting his defence.

The applicant had specifically raised this objection in his reply dated 03.09.2014, indicating he did not waive this mandatory requirement.

Therefore, the subsequent imposition of the extreme penalty of removal from service by the Appellate Authority and its affirmation by the Revisional Authority were deemed unsustainable.

However, concerning the inquiry report and the Disciplinary Authority's order, the Tribunal found that since the applicant did not challenge them through a departmental appeal, those findings attained finality and could not be quashed in the present application.

The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 02.12.2014 and the Revisional Authority dated 28.10.2016 are quashed and set aside.

Due to the applicant's superannuation, reinstatement is not possible.

The applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits, except back wages, for the period he was out of service (02.12.2014 till superannuation), considering the original penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

The period from 02.12.2014 till the date of superannuation shall be counted for qualifying service for post-retiral benefits.

There shall be no order as to costs.