HEMANT MAKODE vs DEFENCE PRODUCTION on 15 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR Order Sheet Item no.: 57 O.A./890/2026 (JABALPUR) [ DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 2 Order Dated: 15/10/2026 HEMANT MAKODE Vs DEFENCE PRODUCTION

For Applicant(s) Advocate : SHRI HORI LAL VISHWAKARMA

For Respondent(s) Advocate : SHRI S P SINGH Order of The Tribunal Hon’ble Shri Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (Judicial) connected through VC. Today the matter is listed for hearing on interim relief. The applicant has sought for the following interim relief in this O.A. "9. The Applicant has already undergone one complete disciplinary proceeding which culminated in the penalty of Censure. The said penalty was thereafter reopened not on an appeal preferred by the Applicant, but in the course of an appeal preferred by another employee. The foundational order dated 18.06.2025 was not supplied to the Applicant. The Applicant's revision has now been rejected by order dated 29.07.2026. The legality of the very source of jurisdiction to reopen the Applicant's concluded case is therefore serious. Unless the fresh enquiry is stayed, the Applicant would be compelled to undergo a second disciplinary enquiry before the Tribunal determines whether the respondents possessed the jurisdiction to reopen the first proceeding at all. It is therefore just, necessary and in the interest of justice that further proceedings pursuant to the Factory Order dated 13.11.2025 be stayed during pendency of the Original Application." The applicant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which culminated in the imposition of the minor penalty of Censure vide order dated 29.02.2024. The applicant did not prefer any appeal against the said order. Subsequently, an appeal dated 11.02.2025 was preferred by another employee, namely, Shri Arjun Kumar Gotiya. During the consideration of the appeal, Chief General Manager (Admn.) vide order dated 17.10.2025 (Annexure A-4) has set aside the penalty order and remitted the matter for a fresh enquiry. Pursuant thereto, a Factory Order dated 13.11.2025 was issued, initiating further disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant. The applicant challenged the action before the Revisional Authority; however, his revision was rejected vide order dated 29.07.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has approached this Tribunal, inter alia, challenging the jurisdiction and legality of reopening the concluded disciplinary proceedings and seeking interim relief for staying further proceedings pursuant to the Factory Order dated 13.11.2025. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer for interim relief, submitting that the departmental inquiry against the applicant is pending pursuant to the orders passed by the competent authorities and that the Inquiry Officer is yet to submit the inquiry report. It is contended that the applicant would have an adequate opportunity to participate in the inquiry and present his defence in accordance with the applicable rules. It is further submitted that the issues relating to the jurisdiction of the authorities and the legality of reopening the concluded disciplinary proceedings require examination of the relevant records. Accordingly, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the interim relief application. Heard the counsel for both the parties on the prayer for interim relief. The principal contention of the applicant is that the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings had attained finality and that the same were reopened pursuant to an order passed by the Appellate Authority in an appeal preferred by another employee, namely, Shri Arjun Kumar Gotiya, without any appeal having been preferred by the Applicant himself. We are of the prima facie view that the applicant has raised an arguable issue as to whether the respondents possessed the requisite statutory authority to reopen the concluded disciplinary proceedings in the circumstances pleaded. The question as to whether the impugned action is sustainable in law, particularly in view of the provisions of Rules 27 and 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, requires consideration at the stage of final adjudication. In the meanwhile, if the fresh disciplinary enquiry is permitted to proceed, the Applicant would be compelled to participate in a further enquiry before the legality of the very initiation of such proceedings is examined by this Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Applicant against further proceedings during the pendency of the Original Application. Accordingly, the interim relief prayed for is allowed. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 13.11.2025, insofar as the applicant is concerned, until the next date of hearing or until further orders of this Tribunal. The Respondents are directed to file their detailed reply, before the next date. List the matter on 27.01.2027. Issue certified copy. Smt Mallika Arya Member (A) RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA Member (J) Rajul Namdeo ( steno 'c' )