Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

O.A No. 2781/2004

Advocates

(By Advocate: Shri D.S Chaudhary with Shri Shantanu Bhardwaj)
(By Advocate: Shri S.M Arif)

Judges

Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Member (J)
N.D Dayal, Member (A)

Acts

Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The said rule 29
Clause (vi) of sub rule 1 of Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
rule 25 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968,
clause (vi) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules
Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, in OA No.2155/2004,
provisions of rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Validity
rule 4 (5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987
rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules,
Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules,
sub-rule (5) of rule 25
sub-rule (5),

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Tribunal Opinion — Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion was delivered by Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Member (J). MA 2302/2004 for joinder was allowed.

Four applicants (referred to collectively as "applicants") challenged:

a show cause notice dated 11.06.2004 issued under clause (vi) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (read with Department of Posts Notification dated 29.05.2001) proposing to enhance the punishment previously imposed by orders dated 30.07.2001; and
an order/charge memorandum dated 29.09.2004 by which major penalty proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Background facts as stated in the opinion:

Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Ghaziabad Division issued a charge memorandum dated 14.03.2001 under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules against the first three applicants; an identical charge sheet dated 12/30.04.2001 was issued against applicant No.4. The allegations concerned violations of departmental instructions in cash-remittance.
Applicants denied the allegations and submitted detailed representations.
Vide identical orders dated 30.07.2001 the Sr. Supdt. found them responsible and imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs.2,000/- in five equal instalments; that penalty was operated by the applicants.
On 11.06.2004 Respondent No.2 (CPMG) issued a show cause notice proposing enhancement of the earlier penalty to one of the major penalties specified in clauses (v)–(ix) of Rule 11, invoking clause (vi) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 read with the Department of Posts Notification of 29.05.2001.
Applicants filed replies/representations dated 03.07.2004 and a supplementary reply dated 10.08.2004 and also preferred a statutory appeal on 05.08.2004 (with a request to condone delay).
Respondent No.3 thereafter issued a charge memorandum dated 29.09.2004 containing three articles of charge. Applicants filed further representation to Respondent No.1 on 05.10.2004 seeking withdrawal of the impugned notices and charge sheets.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the respondents were justified in issuing the impugned show cause notice dated 11.06.2004 (and thereafter the charge memorandum dated 29.09.2004) seeking enhancement of a penalty which had already been imposed and undergone by the applicants.
Whether the power of revision under clause (vi) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (and comparable provisos under analogous service rules) can be exercised after a long delay, or whether such power must be exercised within a reasonable time and subject to the procedural safeguards and time-limits provided in the rules.
Whether the impugned show cause and subsequent proceedings suffer from non-application of mind, lack of stated reasons, bias or violation of principles of natural justice (including a contention invoking Article 20(2) — double jeopardy).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

The representation and the statutory appeal filed by the applicants remained undecided; despite the penalty already having been imposed and undergone, respondents attempted to revive proceedings to enhance punishment — an action the applicants asserted was estopped in law and violative of Article 20(2) (double jeopardy).
The show cause notice dated 11.06.2004 contained only a bare statement that the earlier penalty "was not commensurate with the charges framed" and contained no other reasons; reliance was placed on authorities holding that a reviewing authority must assign reasons when it differs from a disciplinary authority.
The power under Rule 29 (and analogous provisions) is subject to time limits and safeguards: the appellate authority has six months to act, while other authorities may act "at any time" but that phrase must be read as subject to a reasonable time limitation; the impugned action taken after a long delay was arbitrary and illegal.
The material in the earlier Rule 16 charge memo (14.03.2001) and the later Rule 14 charge memo (29.09.2004) was identical, which, in applicants' submission, demonstrated arbitrariness and bias in the respondents' decision to re-open and enhance the penalty.
Allegations of punitive mind, inter-divisional transfers and breach of natural justice were also raised.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents stated that the cases were reviewed under Rule 29 after the applicants preferred appeals; on such review Respondent No.2 issued the show cause notice on 11.06.2004 proposing enhancement, and Respondent No.3 issued the charge memorandum dated 29.09.2004.
Respondents contended the decision was taken with due application of mind, that the applicants had remitted large sums "lavishly and un-meticulously" causing departmental loss, and that the previous penalty was not commensurate with the gravity of the fault.
They argued the OA was premature because applicants would have the opportunity to place an effective defence at the oral enquiry under Rule 14; allegations of bias were denied and respondents asserted that full opportunities would be given during enquiry.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
ATR 1988 (1) CAT 257 — Govind Lal Chopra vs. Union of India	Holds that where a reviewing authority issues a show cause notice for a more severe penalty but does not give reasons for differing from the disciplinary authority's order, such omission manifests non-application of mind (as relied upon by applicants).	The opinion records reliance on this decision to support the proposition that reasons must be assigned by a reviewing authority when differing from the disciplinary authority; the Tribunal treated lack of reasons as a relevant infirmity in the impugned notices.
ATR 1988 (1) CAT 713 — Mukundlal H. Dave vs. Union of India & Ors.	Holds that the reviewing authority should assign reasons when it differs from the disciplinary authority (as relied upon by applicants).	The Tribunal noted this authority to emphasise that the reviewing authority must state reasons — supporting applicants' contention that the impugned notices were vitiated by lack of reasons/application of mind.
OA No.2155/2004, Shri N.P. Patil vs. Union of India & Ors. (Mumbai Bench, 05.09.2006)	Decision interpreting rule 25 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (considered pari materia to Rule 29 CCS (CCA) Rules) and addressing the scope of the proviso permitting revision "without restriction to any time limit". The bench examined whether that phrase must be read reasonably.	The Tribunal treated this Co-ordinate Bench decision as binding on the present Bench and applied its reasoning: the phrase "without restriction to any time limit" must be read in a reasonable and restricted manner and revision should be exercised within a reasonable period; unexplained long delay can render the exercise illegal.
Ram Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India, 1994 (1) SCC 44	This Supreme Court judgment was among those noticed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the N.P. Patil decision; the opinion records that Supreme Court judgments were considered but does not set out each principle in detail in this text.	Referenced as part of the body of Supreme Court authority considered by the Co-ordinate Bench whose reasoning this Tribunal followed; applied in support of requiring reasoned action and reasonable exercise of revisional powers.
N. Rama Rao vs. President, CSIR & Anr., 1987 (5) ATC 575	Noted among Supreme Court authorities considered by the Co-ordinate Bench; the present opinion does not elaborate the specific pronouncement from this case.	Used together with other Supreme Court authorities to support the principle that revisional powers must be reasonably exercised; relied upon via the Co-ordinate Bench decision.
E.S. Athityaraman vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Madras, 1971 (2) SLR 41	One of the Supreme Court judgments noticed by the Co-ordinate Bench (specific principle not detailed in the present opinion).	Considered by the Co-ordinate Bench and treated as part of the legal background that informed its holding; the present Tribunal followed that holding.
Kundan Lal vs. Delhi Administration, 1976 (1) SLR 133	Noted by the Co-ordinate Bench; the present opinion does not set out the case's holding in full.	Referenced in the Co-ordinate Bench's cumulative reading of the law that led to the conclusion that revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable period; relied upon by this Tribunal.
Shri Govind Lal Chopra vs. Union of India, 1988 (7) ACT 40	Referenced among authorities considered; the present opinion also refers to an ATR of Govind Lal Chopra (see earlier entries) addressing reasons and application of mind by reviewing authority.	Referred to in the context of the need for a reviewing authority to assign reasons; formed part of the jurisprudential basis the Tribunal applied.
Union of India & Ors. vs. R. Reddappa & Anr., 1993 (4) SCC 269	Stated principle: infirmity in a dismissal order is not curable by mere affirmation in appeal or revision; an illegal order does not become lawful merely because it has been affirmed unless the higher authority applied its mind to the infirmity.	The Tribunal relied on this principle (as cited in the Co-ordinate Bench decision) to hold that later affirmation cannot cure the basic infirmity of an illegal revisional exercise; used to support the conclusion that delayed revisional action without explanation is illegal.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's reasoning as articulated in the opinion proceeds in the following steps (limited strictly to what appears in the text):

The Tribunal identified the short question for consideration: whether respondents were justified in issuing the show cause notice dated 11.06.2004 when the penalty imposed by order dated 30.07.2001 had already been operated by the applicants.
The Tribunal recorded the applicants' principal legal contentions: that the revisional power under Rule 29 (clause (vi) of sub-rule (1)) is circumscribed by time-limits and other safeguards, that "at any time" must be read reasonably, and that the impugned show cause gave only a bare assertion that the earlier penalty "was not commensurate with the charges framed" without further reasons, demonstrating non-application of mind and bias.
The Tribunal noted the respondents' defence that the matter was reviewed in terms of Rule 29, that the decision to enhance was taken with due application of mind, and that applicants would have full opportunities to make their defence at a future oral enquiry under Rule 14.
The Tribunal considered and relied upon the earlier Co-ordinate Bench decision in OA No.2155/2004 (Shri N.P. Patil) which had interpreted a provision under the Railway Servants rules (analogue to Rule 29) holding that the phrase "without restriction to any time limit" must be read reasonably and that revisional powers should be exercised within a reasonable time. That Bench had concluded that unexplained delays (4 years 9 months in that case) rendered the revisional action illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
Applying that reasoning, the Tribunal observed that no attempt was made by respondents in the present case to explain the delay of almost three years in issuing the impugned show cause notice (the opinion records the phrase "impugned show cause notice dated 11.04.2004" in one paragraph and elsewhere consistently refers to the show cause dated 11.06.2004) and also noted that respondents issued a fresh charge memorandum under Rule 14 without passing and communicating any specific written order rejecting the applicants' objections to the show cause notice.
The Tribunal found that the respondents had not supplied any specific reasons in their reply affidavit as to how they arrived at the decision to re-open and enhance the penalty, and that issuing the charge memorandum without a reasoned decision on objections was "alien to the law and rules."
On the cumulative reading of the applicable rule position, the earlier Co-ordinate Bench precedent, and the material before it (including the identity of material between earlier and later charge memoranda), the Tribunal concluded that the impugned action suffered from legal infirmities and could not be sustained.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the show cause notice dated 11.06.2004 and the charge memorandum dated 29.09.2004, and allowed the Original Application (OA). The order was passed "with all consequential benefits" and no costs were awarded.

Implications (direct effect and scope as stated in the opinion):

Direct effect: The impugned show cause notice dated 11.06.2004 and the charge memorandum dated 29.09.2004 are declared void and are quashed and set aside; the applicants are entitled to all consequential benefits arising from this result.
Scope: The Tribunal expressly relied on and followed a prior Co-ordinate Bench decision interpreting an analogous rule and concluded that revisional powers expressed as exercisable "at any time" or "without restriction to any time limit" must be read reasonably and exercised within a reasonable period. The opinion does not claim to lay down a new broad precedent beyond applying the cited Co-ordinate Bench and Supreme Court authorities to these facts; its direction relates to the facts and procedural infirmities found in this matter.

Final order signed by (N.D. Dayal) (Mukesh Kumar Gupta) Member (A) Member (J) as per the text of the opinion.

Show full summary ...

Lata Chaudhary v. Union Of India

By Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Member (J) : MA 2302/2004 filed under rule 4 (5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together is allowed.

2. 4 Applicants in this OA challenge validity of show cause notice dated 11.06.2004 issued under the purported exercise of powers conferred vide clause (vi) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 read with Department of Posts Notification dated 29.05.2001, proposing to enhance the punishment awarded vide order dated 30.07.2001 and to inflict one of the major penalties as specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Validity of order dated 29.09.2004, vide which major penalty proceedings were drawn under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, have also been impugned.

3. Facts as stated are that Sr. Supdt. of Post Office, Ghaziabad Division, Ghaziabad issued charge Memorandum dated 14.03.2001 under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, against first three applicants. Identical charge sheet dated 12/30.04.2001 was also issued against applicant No.4, alleging that they violated certain departmental instructions in cash-remittance, which allegations were denied by submitting detailed representations. Vide identical orders dated 30.07.2001, Sr. Supdt. of Post Office, Ghaziabad Division, holding applicants responsible for irregular remittance, imposed penalty of recovery of Rs.2,000/- in 5 equal instalments. When such was the position, all of a sudden, Respondent No.2 (CPMG) issued impugned show cause notice dated 11.06.2004, alleging that the penalty imposed by the SSPOs, Ghaziabad Division, was not commensurate with the charges framed and, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under clause (vi) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 read with Department of Posts Notification dated 29.05.2001, proposed to enhance the said punishment awarding one of the major penalties and consequently required them to submit representations, if any, within the prescribed time limit. They filed reply/representation dated 3.7.2004, followed by supplementary reply dated 10.08.2004 raising numerous legal pleas against the proposed action. In the meantime, a statutory appeal was also preferred on 05.08.2004 along with request to condone delay in filing such an appeal. Immediately thereafter, Respondent No.3 issued impugned charge memorandum dated 29.09.2004, which contained 3 articles of charge. Further representation was preferred before Respondent No.1 on 5.10.2004, seeking direction to Respondents 2 and 3 to withdraw the impugned notice and charge sheets.

4. Shri D.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for applicants stated that said representation as well as appeal remained undecided till date. It was forcefully contended that once a punishment is imposed, which has been undergone by each of the applicants, Respondents are estopped in law to revive the same proceedings for the purpose of enhancing the said punishment undergone. Such a course of action is unconstitutional, violative of the doctrine of double jeopardy as defined under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. It is contended that Respondent No.2 acted with punitive mind and also transferred applicants inter-divisionally due to same incident, which action is under challenge before this Tribunal by separate proceedings. The impugned action of respondents is actuated with bias and is contrary to the principles of natural justice, good conscious and equity. Learned counsel vehemently contended that Respondents impugned action also violates the provisions of rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Under the aforesaid provision, the appellate authority can take recourse to the said rules within six months from the date of order proposed to be revised. Learned counsel further urged that action under clause (vi) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules sought to be invoked, has to be resorted within a reasonable period and such power cannot be exercised at the sweet will of concerned authority.

5. Reliance was placed on ATR 1988 (1) CAT 257, Govind Lal Chopra vs. Union of India, wherein it has been held that where the authority issuing show cause notice for a more severe penalty to be imposed on review does not give only reasons for differing with the disciplinary authority in his order, such order manifests non-application of mind. Reliance was also placed on ATR 1988 (1) CAT 713, Mukundlal H. Dave vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein it has been held that the reviewing authority should assign the reasons when he differed from the disciplinary authority. The impugned notices were vitiated due to lack of application of mind and carried a kind of bias inasmuch as the authorities viewed the matter such as to warrant as severe form of punishment, which reflected a closed mind, impaired by a sort of bias. The learned counsel also contended that the only reason assigned vide impugned communication dated 11.06.2004 was that the penalty imposed earlier was not commensurate with the charges framed. No other reasons were either supplied or communicated even in the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, contended learned counsel. Merely because the punishment imposed is alleged to be not-commensurate could not be a ground for the reviewing authority to re-draw the entire disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge memorandum under Rule 14 particularly when the earlier proceedings issued and finalized under Rule 16 had already been undergone by the delinquent officials.

6. Respondents contested the claim laid stating that applicants charge sheeted on 14.03.2001 under Rule 16 were awarded the penalty of recovery of Rs.2,000/-, against which they preferred appeal. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 reviewed the case as per provisions of Rule 29, which confers powers upon him and issued impugned show cause notice dated 11.06.2004 for enhancement of penalty. On consideration, Respondent No.3 issued impugned charge memorandum dated 29.09.2004. Said action was undertaken with due application of mind. Applicants did not care for the Government money and remitted huge amounts lavishly and un-meticulously, in which process the Department sustained loss. Imposition of penalty, which is not commensurate with gravity of fault committed, is sufficient reason to invoke powers under Rule 29 (i) - (vi). The present OA is premature inasmuch as applicants would be at liberty to place their effective defence during the course of oral enquiry to be held under Rule 14, contended Shri S.M. Arif, learned counsel for Respondents. Allegations of bias etc. were denied. The decision to enhance the penalty was not taken abruptly, as alleged.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and material placed on record.

8. The short question which falls for consideration in this proceeding is whether Respondents are justified in issuing impugned show cause notice dated 11.06.2004 particularly when penalty imposed vide order dated 30.07.2001 had already been operated.

9. Shri D.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for applicants strenuously urged that the impugned show cause notice dated 11.6.2004 has been issued under Clause (vi) of sub rule 1 of Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 proposing to enhance the punishment awarded vide memorandum dated 30.07.2001 to the extent of one of the major penalties as specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The said rule 29 under Part VIII of the Rules deals with Revision and confers powers upon competent authority to - (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or remit the case to the authority which made the order to or any other authority directing such authority to make such further enquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or pass such other orders as it may deem fit: Exercise of aforesaid powers is circumscribed and subject to certain limitations and satisfaction of necessary safeguards provided therein including the time limit. Appellate authority can exercise such powers within six months of the order proposed to be revised and other authorities can exercise such powers at any time. The term at anytime cannot be indefinite period and there has to be a reasonable period within which such power should be exercised. Apart from stating that penalty imposed earlier was not commensurate with the charges framed, no other reasons were neither detailed nor communicated to applicants.

10. Learned counsel further pointed out that perusal of earlier charge memorandum issued under Rule 16 dated 14.3.2001 vis-`-vis the one issued now on 29.09.2004 under Rule 14 would show that all the material used therein are identical and same. Once such are the facts, the exercise of power by Respondent No.2 is not only arbitrary but also illegal and smacks bias approach.

11. Shri S.M. Arif, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, contended that all aspects were considered by the respondents before taking the impugned action against applicants and further that the OA is premature inasmuch as applicants would be allowed to produce reasonable defence and would be given fullest opportunities.

12. We may note that Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in its Circuit Sitting at Nagpur had the occasion to deal with the scope and ambit of rule 25 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, which is almost pari-materia to Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, in OA No.2155/2004, Shri N.P. Patil vs. Union of India & Ors, on 05.09.2006. In the said order and judgment, the question had been considered in the following manner:- 14. As such further question which falls for consideration is whether the proviso of sub-rule (5) of rule 25 is applicable or not. The basic distinction discernable from reading of said sub-rule as a whole is that under proviso to sub-rule (5), when a revision is undertaken by Railway Board or the General Manager of a Zonal Railway or an authority of the status of General Manager in any other Railway Unit or Administration, such exercise can be done without restriction to any time limit, while under normal circumstances, action under sub-rule (5) cannot be taken after more than six months from the date of the order to be revised to the detriment of Railway servant, or one year where the order proposed is in favour of Railway servant. As such we observe that the said sub-rule (5) in total prescribes three periods of limitation, firstly six months when the order proposed is detrimental to Railway servant, secondly one year when the order proposed is favourable to Railway servant and thirdly without restriction of any time limit when such an exercise of revision is undertaken by authorities enumerated under proviso of said sub-rule. Further issue needs consideration is what is scope of term without restriction of any time limit, as stated under Proviso to sub-rule (5). Should such a revision be not undertaken within a reasonable period? Whether the aforesaid term means that authorities enumerated therein can review such order as & when it desires e.g. when the penalty period prescribed has already expired, or when the delinquent is due for promotion or due to attain the age of superannuation. Should such term be read & interpreted in a reasonable & restricted manner? (emphasis supplied)

13. After noticing the rule position as well as Honble Supreme Courts judgments in Ram Chand & Ors vs. UOI, 1994 (1) SCC 44, N. Rama Rao vs. President, CSIR & Anr., 1987 (5) ATC 575, E.S. Athityaraman vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Madras, 1971 (2) SLR 41, Kundan Lal vs. Delhi Administration, 1976 (1) SLR 133 and Shri Govind Lal Chopra vs. Union of India, 1988 (7) ACT 40, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal ruled as under: 18. On a cumulative reading of the rule position, the law noticed hereinabove as well as facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the question raised hereinabove, namely, as to whether applicants case falls within the proviso of sub rule (5) or otherwise, our answer is that it is proviso to sub rule (5) of rule 25, which would be attracted in the present case, as the show cause notice dated 18.02.2003 had been issued by the General Manager, Central Railway, who is otherwise one step higher than the authority to whom further revision would have lie as stated vide appellate order. Vide appellate order dated 21.05.1998 it was specified that a revision against the said order would lie to AGM. The further issue examined by us is as to whether term employed under aforesaid proviso, namely, without restriction to any time limit has to be read liberally & reasonably. On bestowing our careful consideration to all aspects of the case, we are of the considered view that aforesaid power should be exercised within a reasonable period. No attempt was made to explain the delay of 4 years 9 months in issuing said show cause notice, leave aside valid explanation for delay. The aforesaid term did not confer an unbridled power upon the concerned authority to exercise said power irrespective of any time frame & has to be read down. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that said impugned action dated 18.02.2003 as well as penalty enhanced thereafter vide order dated 12.05.2003 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and cannot be sustained in law. In our considered opinion, aforesaid law aptly applies in the facts & circumstances of the present case.

20. Taking an overall view of the matter, we do not find any justification in the contention raised by Respondents as no explanation has come forth about the delay in issuing the show cause notice dated 18.2.2003 which culminated in imposition of higher penalty vide order dated 12.05.2003 particularly when the period of punishment prescribed by the appellate authoritys order dated 21.05.1998 had already been undergone by the applicant. As such, we find that the General Manager, Central Railways committed an illegality in issuing the show cause notice dated 18.02.2003 & also imposing enhanced punishment vide order dated 12.5.2003. Since these orders were void ab-initio, illegal & contrary to the mandate of the aforesaid provision to said rule, the appeal preferred before the Railway Board is inconsequential. We find support in taking such view from the observations made in 1993 (4) SCC 269 Union of India & Ors. Vs. R. Reddappa & Anr., wherein it was held that infirmity in the dismissal order is not curable by mere affirmation in appeal or revision. An illegal order passed by the disciplinary authority does not assume the correctness of legality only because it has been affirmed in appeal or revision unless the higher authority is found to have applied its mind to the basic infirmities in the order. (emphasis supplied)

14. In our considered view, the said judgment which clearly concludes the issue raised hereinabove is binding upon this Bench as a legal precedence and we are bound by the same. No attempt has been made by Respondents herein to explain the delay of almost three years in issuing the impugned show cause notice dated 11.04.2004 as well as the charge memorandum dated 29.09.2004. We may further note that respondents issued fresh charge memorandum under rule 14 vide charge memorandum dated 29.09.2004 without passing and communicating any specific written order, rejecting applicants objections raised against the aforenoted show cause notice. Such a course of action is alien to the law and rules particularly when they were supposed to take a decision on applicants objection raised against the show cause notice dated 11.06.2004. There is not even a whisper in the reply affidavit also as to how they arrived at such a decision.

15. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned action cannot be sustained in law. Resultantly, the show cause notice dated 11.06.2004 and charge memorandum dated 29.09.2004 are quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. OA is allowed. No costs. (N.D. Dayal) (Mukesh Kumar Gupta) Member (A) Member (J) /PKR/

Lata Chaudhary v. Union Of India

Tribunal Opinion — Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Lata Chaudhary v. Union Of India

Comments