High Court of Judicature at Bombay Examines Validity of Revisional Order Imposing Reduction in Pay in Disciplinary Proceedings Under CCS(CCA) Rules. Writ Petition Challenges Central Administrative Tribunal Order Dismissing Original Application with Costs; Court Reviews Prior Exoneration by Inquiry Officer, Disagreement Note, and Subsequent Revision After Proceedings Were Dropped.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioner's original application with costs and seeking quashing of a revisional order imposing reduction in pay.

The petitioner sought setting aside of the Tribunal's order dated 20 February 2020, quashing of the revisional order dated 13 May 2013 imposing reduction in pay, direction for financial and other relief as if no punishment was imposed, and costs.

The petitioner was aggrieved by the revisional authority's decision to revise the order-in-original that had dropped disciplinary proceedings, leading to imposition of penalty, and by the Tribunal's dismissal of his challenge with costs.

Inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner by report dated 30 October 1999. Disciplinary authority initially agreed but successor issued disagreement note dated 30 August 2001. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the petitioner's original application and set aside the disagreement note by order dated 17 May 2003. The High Court dismissed the Union of India's writ petition on 11 August 2009, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 10 January 2011 due to delay. Disciplinary proceedings were dropped by order-in-original dated 18 August 2011. The revisional authority then initiated revision, and the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's original application No. 455 of 2013 with costs on 20 February 2020, leading to this writ petition.

Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the original application with costs. Whether the revisional order dated 13 May 2013 imposing reduction in pay was valid and within the scope of Rule 29(1)(v) read with Rule 31 of the CCS(CCA) Rules. Whether the appellate authority could revise the order-in-original dated 18 August 2011 after the disciplinary proceedings had been dropped and after the Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition on grounds of delay. Whether the prior decisions of the Tribunal and High Court, which had set aside the disagreement note, precluded the revisional authority from taking action.

The petitioner contended that the communication dated 15 February 2012 was received on 3 March 2012 and sought withdrawal or cancellation of the proposed revision. The appellate authority rejected the petitioner's contentions and proposed to revise the order-in-original, finding gross misconduct.

Aggrieved by dismissal of his original application (O.A. No. 455 of 2013) by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (hereafter “Tribunal”) with costs of Rs.75,000/-, the original applicant (hereafter “petitioner”) has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by instituting this application dated 28th October 2020 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The inquiry culminated in a report of the inquiry officer dated 30th October 1999 holding that the charges were not proved and hence, the petitioner was not guilty. A coordinate Bench by its judgment and order dated 11th August 2009 dismissed the writ petition holding, inter alia, that once the disciplinary authority agreed with the report of the inquiry officer, who exonerated the charged officer, there was no occasion for the disciplinary authority to seek advice of the Central Vigilance Commission. The Supreme Court, by an order dated 10th January 2011, refused to grant the prayer for condonation of delay. The Special Leave Petition, thus, stood dismissed. In view thereof, the order-in-original dated 18th August 2011 was issued by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner whereby the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner stood dropped. The appellate authority did not agree with the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and proceeded to pass an order contained in memorandum dated 13th March 2012, signed on 14th March 2012.

Charge-sheet issued on 21 August 1998 under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules. Inquiry officer report dated 30 October 1999 exonerated petitioner. Disciplinary authority initially agreed; successor issued disagreement note dated 30 August 2001. Petitioner challenged before CAT in O.A. No. 49 of 2002, which along with O.A. No. 875 of 2002 was allowed on 17 May 2003, setting aside disagreement note. Union of India's writ petition No. 2478 of 2003 dismissed by High Court on 11 August 2009. Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petition on 10 January 2011 due to delay. Disciplinary authority passed order-in-original dated 18 August 2011 dropping proceedings. Appellate authority issued communication dated 15 February 2012 proposing revision under Rule 29 and extended time limit under Rule 31. Petitioner replied on 5 March 2012 urging withdrawal. Appellate authority passed memorandum dated 13/14 March 2012 proposing to revise and finding misconduct. Later revisional order dated 13 May 2013 imposed reduction in pay. Petitioner filed O.A. No. 455 of 2013 before CAT, which was dismissed with costs on 20 February 2020. Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 on 28 October 2020.

• Constitution of India: Article 226
• Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: Rule 11, Rule 14, Rule 29(1)(v), Rule 31
• Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: Rule 3(1)(i), Rule 3(1)(ii), Rule 3(1)(iii)