Suresh Kumar vs REVENUE on 30 December 2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH 61/35, COPERNICUS MARG,NEW DELHI-110001 Order Sheet Item no.: 4 O.A./5000/2025 (DELHI) [ DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING ] Court No.: 3 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 30/12/2025 SURESH KUMAR Vs REVENUE

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. B K Berera For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. R K Sharma Order of The Tribunal Learned counsel for the applicant seeks urgent interim relief in terms of para 9 of the OA, which reads as under:- "The Applicant prays that the operation of the Appellate Authority order dated 10-12-2025 and Disciplinary Authority order dt Nil recd. on 7-08-2025 be stayed till the disposal of the O.A as the Inquiry has already been closed and it is against the Rule 14(15) of the CCS ( CCA) Rules 1965 to call new witness and the law settled by the various courts on the subject. The Applicant prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the :fi.uiher / fi:esh Inquiry till disposal of the O.A."

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has challenged the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the order dated 07.08.2025 of the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the disciplinary inquiry has been remitted for further inquiry for the purpose of examining an additional/new witness.

3. It is submitted that the inquiry proceedings stood concluded on 13.06.2025, the Presenting Officer had already submitted her written brief on 05.06.2025, and the applicant had submitted his defence brief on 11.06.2025. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 07.07.2025. At no stage prior to closure of the inquiry was any request made for examination of the said Principal as a witness.

4. Learned counsel contends that Rule 14(15) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, along with the Note appended thereto, clearly bars the introduction of new evidence or witnesses after closure of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority and specifically prohibits filling up lacunae in the prosecution case. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer, after considering the rival submissions, took a conscious decision not to summon the said witness, which could not have been overridden mechanically by the Disciplinary Authority.

5. It is further submitted that the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a non-speaking order, as it does not deal with the objections raised by the applicant nor does it disclose how the statutory requirements of Rule 14(15) are satisfied. The Appellate Authority, while passing the order dated 10.12.2025, has also failed to consider the statutory embargo under Rule 14(15) and the settled law that new witnesses cannot be introduced to fill gaps in evidence.

6. Learned counsel submits that continuation of further inquiry pursuant to the impugned orders would cause serious prejudice and irreparable injury to the applicant and would render the Original Application infructuous. It is therefore prayed that the impugned orders be stayed during pendency of the OA.

7. Mr. R K Sharma, learned counsel appears on advance service and submits that the Original Application is misconceived and that the interim relief sought deserves rejection.

8. It is submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has acted strictly in accordance with Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which empowers it to remit a case for further inquiry for reasons to be recorded in writing. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority found that the examination of the Principal of the concerned school was essential to establish the authenticity of the School Leaving Certificate, which is the foundation of the Article of Charge.

9. Learned counsel contends that Rule 14(15) does not curtail the powers of the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 15(1) and that the inquiry proceedings attain finality only after the Disciplinary Authority passes a final order. Since no final penalty order has been passed, the proceedings are still pending.

10. It is further submitted that adequate opportunity has been granted to the applicant to cross-examine the additional witness and to participate in the further inquiry, and therefore, no prejudice is caused to him. The object of departmental inquiry is truth-finding, and technical objections should not be permitted to defeat substantive justice.

11. Learned counsel submits that grant of interim stay would amount to stalling disciplinary proceedings, which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, dismissal of the interim prayer is sought.

12. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. Prima facie, it appears that the inquiry proceedings had concluded, the Presenting Officer had closed her case, and the Inquiry Officer had already submitted his report prior to the issuance of the impugned order dated 07.08.2025. The scope and interplay of Rule 14(15) and Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, particularly with regard to introduction of a new witness after closure of inquiry, requires detailed examination.

14. At this stage, the applicant has been able to make out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the applicant, and irreparable prejudice is likely to be caused if the further inquiry is allowed to proceed during pendency of the Original Application.

15. Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is directed that the inquiry proceedings, if any, shall be conducted subject to the outcome of the present O.A.; however, no additional witness shall be called.

16. Reply, if any, shall be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

17. List the matter on 02.02.2025. Manish Garg Member (J) Sneha Meena ( steno 'c' )