9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment include the quashing of a charge-sheet by the Tribunal, the respondent's grounds for challenging the charge-sheet, the timing of the respondent's application to the Tribunal, and the appropriate stage for addressing the charge-sheet.
Quashing of Charge-sheet: The respondent challenged the charge-sheet issued to him, arguing that the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings had been previously closed by the Department after full examination. The respondent contended that initiating disciplinary enquiry on this basis was impermissible. The Tribunal quashed the charge-sheet, but the Supreme Court held that the respondent had not yet submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and should have done so before seeking Tribunal intervention. Grounds for Challenging Charge-sheet: The respondent raised multiple grounds before the Tribunal for quashing the charge-sheet, which were not considered due to the Tribunal's decision to quash it on a single ground. The respondent's counsel argued for a fresh decision on all points raised by the respondent, emphasizing that the charge-sheet's basis was not valid for disciplinary proceedings. Timing of Tribunal Application: The respondent rushed to the Central Administrative Tribunal upon learning about the charge-sheet, even before submitting a reply. The Supreme Court criticized this premature action, stating that the respondent should have first replied to the charge-sheet and allowed the disciplinary authority to make a decision before approaching the Tribunal. Appropriate Stage for Addressing Charge-sheet: The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal should not have entertained the application to quash the charge-sheet at such an early stage. The respondent had the opportunity to respond to the charge-sheet and raise all available points, including those argued by the counsel. The Court emphasized that the respondent should have awaited the disciplinary authority's decision on his reply before seeking Tribunal intervention. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order that quashed the charge-sheet. The respondent's application before the Tribunal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The Court emphasized the importance of following the appropriate procedure in disciplinary matters and allowing the disciplinary authority to consider the respondent's reply before seeking judicial intervention.
|
