Deepak kansal vs DEFENCE on 28 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH 61/35, COPERNICUS MARG,NEW DELHI-110001 Order Sheet Item no.: 39 M.A./4996/2026 (DELHI) [ INTERIM STAY ] [ SENIOR CITIZEN ] In O.A./3880/2025 CHARGE SHEET Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 2 Order Dated: 28/10/2026 DEEPAK KANSAL Vs DEFENCE

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. P S Khare with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. R K Sharma with Mr. Gagandeep Yadav and Ms. Himshika Order of The Tribunal MA No. 4996/2026 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs: "8.1 To call for the entire record of inquiry proceedings including record of Disciplinary Authority vide which he has decided to initiate proceedings and thereafter approved the charge memorandum. 8.2 To allow O.A. and quash and set aside the charge sheet dated 06.05.2024 and subsequent inquiry proceedings if any with all consequential benefits."

During the pendency of the OA, the applicant filed the present MA seeking the following reliefs: "i) To call for the original file(s)/records of the Respondents leading to the impugned action and

ii) Allow the MA and stay the operation of the Order dated 11/3/2026 and all subsequent proceedings/orders thereafter and

iii) To grant any other or further appropriate relief as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case besides cost of the present litigation." Mr. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant, relying upon the counter-reply filed by the respondents in the OA, submits that the respondents have initiated a fresh inquiry against the applicant. We find substance in his contention in view of the averments made by the respondents in their reply to paragraphs 4.16, 5.2 and 5.3, which read as follows: "Reply to para 4.16 : That the content of this corresponding para are disputed and denied after sufficient time given to the charge official to give his defence statement by IO, Inquiry report has been submitted. However, a fresh Inquiry Officer has been detailed by disciplinary authority on 11 Mar 2026. Hence, charged official can give his detailed statement." "Reply to Para 5.2 and 5.3: That the content of this corresponding para are disputed and denied, because contentions raised in these Paragraphs are misconceived and no longer sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the Inquiry Officer (IO) had initially submitted an Inquiry Report on 29.03.2025 after providing sufficient time to the charged official to present his defense. However, the competent authority, upon noticing technical/procedural shortcomings and taking note of the superannuation of the previous IO on 31.10.2025, has constituted a fresh inquiry and detailed Sh. Avinash Chandra Patel, IDSE, CE (Retd.) as the new Inquiry Officer vide order dated 11.03.2026. Since the entire disciplinary inquiry proceedings are being held completely afresh, the applicant will be afforded an absolute and untrammeled opportunity to examine documents, cross-examine witnesses, and project his defense in accordance with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Hence, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice, and the reliance on the Roop Singh Negi case is entirely misplaced at this juncture." Be that as it may, Mr. Khare also draws our attention to the daily order sheet dated 01.08.2026, annexed at page 13. A perusal of the said order sheet prima facie indicates that the respondents have initiated a fresh inquiry, which, according to the applicant, is impermissible in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong CA No. 612/1967. The Constitution Bench made the following observations in paragraph 13 of the said judgment: "It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report- of, the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the disciplinary, Authority-. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under rule 9." In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for interim relief. Accordingly, the present MA is allowed, and the operation of the order dated 11.03.2026 and all subsequent orders passed thereafter is stayed. The MA stands disposed of. OA No. 3880/2025

Stand over to 20.01.2027. Dr. Anand S Khati Member (A) Justice Ranjit More Chairman Gagan Malik ( ps )