TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1060
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure that the pending inquiry is concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said order. 2. The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the learned Tribunal committed any jurisdictional error in refusing to interfere with the charge memorandum dated 21.05.2021 and the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, particularly on the grounds urged by the Petitioner, namely, (i) alleged non-compliance with Rule 14(24) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; and (ii) inordinate delay in conclusion of the inquiry proceedings. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. 4. The Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent No.1 as a direct recruit Appraiser through the Union Public Service Commission ['UPSC'] in the year 1993. In the normal course of service, he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax in the year 2005; thereafter as Deputy Commissioner in the year 2011; as Joint Commissioner in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial Rules, and without ensuring the best value or appropriate service providers. (ii) Article II: Failure to check the terms and conditions of tenders, and lack of supervision of the selection process, which was allegedly pre-meditated and not approved by the competent authority. (iii) Article III: Irregular allocation and splitting of work among contractors, including awarding work to contractors who did not meet technical bid requirements, without bringing this to the notice of the superior authority. (iv) Article IV: Decision to undertake repairs instead of demolition of certain buildings, ignoring independent structural assessments, and relying on reports of selected consultants without proper verification. (v) Article V: Irregular allotments in SDF Tower VIII to units not eligible under prior approvals, contrary to structural and administrative feasibility, leading to cancellation of allotments. The memorandum further directed the Petitioner to submit a written statement of defense within fifteen days, admit or deny the articles of charge, and informed him that the inquiry could be held ex parte in case of non-compliance, while cau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atutory provisions governing departmental inquiries. 14.2 The principal submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner relates to alleged non-compliance with Rule 14(24) of the Rules. It was contended that the Inquiring Authority did not conclude the inquiry within the time-frame stipulated under the said Rule, nor was any written extension obtained from the Disciplinary Authority in the manner contemplated therein. According to the Petitioner, the requirement of recording reasons and seeking written extension is mandatory in nature, and failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure renders the continuation of the inquiry proceedings unsustainable in law. 14.3 It was further submitted that Rule 14(24) of the Rules was introduced in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. (2015) 16 SCC 415, wherein emphasis was placed upon expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. It was urged that the object of incorporating a time prescription in the Rules is to ensure that inquiries are not allowed to continue indefinitely. 14.4 Placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. M.R. Diwan (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal erred in holding that there was no violation of Rule 20 of the Rules. 15. Contentions on behalf of the Respondents: 15.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the challenge to the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of delay is misconceived. According to the Respondents, Rule 14(24) of the Rules prescribes a general time-frame for conclusion of inquiry proceedings but does not render the proceedings void upon mere expiry of the stipulated period. The provision itself contemplates extension for valid reasons. It was contended that in the present case, the inquiry could not be concluded within the initial period owing to administrative exigencies, including change of Presenting Officers, the nature of allegations involving tendering and financial matters, and adjournments sought during the course of proceedings. It was further submitted that CVC circulars are advisory in nature and do not override statutory rules. 15.2 Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Government of A.P. v. V. Appala Swamy (2007) 4 SCC 511, it was submitted that delay, by itself, does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings unless the delinquent esta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tutes a balanced approach, ensuring expeditious completion without prematurely terminating the proceedings. It was further submitted that the decision in Prem Nath Bali (supra) turned on facts involving inordinate delay and is distinguishable. 15.7 It was further contended that the Petitioner's retirement during the pendency of the proceedings does not ipso facto render the inquiry infructuous, as disciplinary proceedings for major penalty may continue in accordance with applicable rules, including for the purpose of determining pensionary consequences. 15.8 Lastly, it was submitted that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and equitable in nature. It was urged that the Petitioner approached the Tribunal after a considerable lapse of time from the issuance of the charge memorandum and has participated in the inquiry proceedings. In such circumstances, no case for interference with the Impugned Order is made out. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: 16. The following two issues arise for determination in the present Petition: I. Whether failure to conclude the Disciplinary Inquiry within the period prescribed under Rule 14(2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Disciplinary Authority or any other Authority authorized by the Disciplinary Authority on his behalf." The said provision, which was inserted subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali (supra), prescribes a time-frame for completion of departmental inquiries. It stipulates that the Inquiring Authority should ordinarily conclude the inquiry within six months from the date of receipt of the order of appointment and submit the report. Where adherence to such time-limit is not possible, the Rule contemplates that reasons are to be recorded and extension of time sought from the Disciplinary Authority in writing, which may allow further time not exceeding six months at a time, for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded. 20. It is necessary to examine whether mere expiry of the time-frame prescribed under Rule 14(24) of the Rules, without more, results in automatic nullification of the disciplinary proceedings. The determination whether a statutory time prescription is mandatory or directory depends upon the language employed, the object sought to be achieved, and whether the provision itself prescribes any consequence of non-compliance. Significan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be unsustainable. However, the said decisions cannot be read as laying down an inflexible or universal proposition that in every case of delay beyond the prescribed period, the proceedings must necessarily be quashed irrespective of the factual context, the nature of charges, stage of proceedings, or absence of prejudice. 25. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has not condoned indefinite delay but has, instead, directed the Competent Authority to conclude the inquiry within a fixed time-frame. Such direction subserves the very objective underlying Rule 14(24) of the Rules, namely expeditious conclusion of proceedings. This Court does not find that the Tribunal, by issuing such direction, exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. 26. In absence of an express statutory consequence of abatement and in absence of demonstrated prejudice, this Court is unable to hold that the alleged non-compliance with Rule 14(24) of the Rules, in the facts of the present case, vitiates the disciplinary proceedings or renders the charge memorandum liable to be quashed at this stage. This Court, however, expects the disciplinary authority to adhere to the time prescription in letter and s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....commencement of the disciplinary proceeding, as the case may be. (2) In the light of the findings in the disciplinary proceeding conducted against the Government servant- (i) if the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it may, after consultation with the lending authority, make such orders on the case as it deems necessary: Provided that in the event of a difference of opinion between the borrowing authority and the lending authority, the services of the Government servant shall be replaced at the disposal of the lending authority; (ii) if the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall replace his services at the disposal of the lending authority and transmit to it the proceedings of the inquiry and thereupon the lending authority may, if it is the disciplinary authority, pass such order thereon as it may deem necessary, or, if it is not the disciplinary authority, submit the case to the disciplinary authority which....