Dr Ajitesh Radhakrishnan vs REVENUE on 3 November 2026

ORDER

Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records leading to Annexures A10, A11, A14 and A15 and set aside the same. and ii) Such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Tribunal may find just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant joined Indian Revenue Service as Assistant Commissioner on 21.12.2009. Later he was promoted as Deputy Commissioner on 18.07.2014 and as Joint Commissioner on 01.01.2019. A complaint dated 01.04.2019 was preferred before the Hon’ble Prime Minister through the Public Grievances Portal (PG Portal) i.e., Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) by one Shri S.Jamal (now no more) alleging corruption against the Principal Chief Commissioner Shri M.Ajit Kumar,

S SARALADEVI

4 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

Superintendent of Customs, Chennai Shri D.S.Thiyagarajan and certain other officials. The said complaint was registered in the PG Portal on 10.04.2019. On 22.04.2019, statement of one Shri Daniel, Driver was taken by the Assistant Commissioner working under the Principal Chief Commissioner against whom the allegations were raised. As per the Principal Chief Commissioner’s letter dated 22.04.2019 addressed to the Additional Director General, the preliminary oral inquiry conducted revealed that the mobile number mentioned in the CPGRAMS belongs to one Shri Daniel, who was a Driver and on questioning him he informed that he is the Driver of the applicant and that his mobile was borrowed by the applicant and forwarded certain message received in the mobile to the applicant himself and then deleted the same. The Principal Chief Commissioner stated that prima facie the originator of the complaint is the applicant, who is a Group ‘A’ officer, which is serious misconduct and requested to take appropriate action. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 decided to conduct inquiry against the applicant and issued the Memorandum dated 05.03.2021. The statement of articles of charge against the applicant as well as the statement of imputations of misconduct were enclosed as Annexures I and II respectively.

S SARALADEVI

5 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

3. The applicant was directed to submit his written statement. Accordingly the applicant submitted his written statement of defence but the Respondent No.1 proceeded to appoint the Inquiring Authority vide order dated 21.02.2022, on the very same day the Presenting Officer was also appointed. Inquiring Authority report was forwarded to the applicant along with Memorandum dated 08.02.2023 asking him to submit his objections. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred OA No.180/00142/2023 before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2025, directing the applicant to submit representations/ objections in response to the inquiry report and copy of the Memorandum dated 08.02.2023 issued by the 1st Respondent. On further challenge made by the applicant before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (CAT) No.37/2025, the order passed by the Ernakulam Bench dated 08.04.2025 in OA No.142/2023, has been set aside remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for re-evaluation. Thereafter, the applicant having been transferred to Bengaluru, PT (Petition for Transfer) was filed by the applicant before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, seeking transfer of this original application to Bangalore Bench. Pursuant to

S SARALADEVI

6 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

the order passed by the Principal Bench in P.T.No.144/2025 transferring the file to this Bench, OA is renumbered as OA No.170/00498/2025.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Ms.Lakshmy Iyengar along with learned Counsel Ms.Niriksha Y.M., submitted that on the needle of suspicion disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the applicant. The complaint was made by Shri Jamal, who is no more against the then Principal Chief Commissioner, Shri M.Ajit Kumar, the then Superintendent of Customs, Chennai, Shri D.S.Thiyagarajan and certain other officials wherein the applicant is not at all involved. In the whole dispute between others, the applicant has been made a scapegoat. The Inquiring Authority submitted the report with the finding that the applicant is found guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority tentatively accepted the same without issuing notice to the applicant and without hearing him. An inquiry report accepted without seeking explanation from the delinquent official, cannot be sustained. The complaint was closed as pseudonymous in 2019 itself solely raised by Shri Jamal. In the charge memorandum dated 05.03.2021, Shri Jamal has been shown as a witness whereas the said Shri Jamal had expired on 02.04.2020

S SARALADEVI

7 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

thereby a dead person has been arrayed as witness. Thus there is non-application of mind on the part of Disciplinary Authority in the entire proceedings.

5. Inviting the attentions of the Bench to the Directorate General of Vigilance report dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure R1(A)/23), learned Counsel submitted that the recommendation made in the said report inasmuch as issuance of administrative warning to the applicant would be considered for his act of lodging of the CPGRAMS complaint has not been followed. This report was not attached to the charge memo, as such the charge memo was at fault in the first place. Contrary to the Directorate General of Vigilance report, charge memorandum has been issued. No show cause notice being issued to the applicant, disciplinary proceedings were vitiated. The applicant has been targeted and made to suffer denying timely promotion coupled with frequent transfers.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 08.04.2025 initially disposed of the OA No.142/2023 though recorded that the attempt of the applicant to let in evidence of an expert opinion to establish that he

S SARALADEVI

8 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

has not authored the complaint and the rejection of the request of applicant was not based on legally sustainable grounds, directed the applicant to file objections/representations in response to the inquiry report (Annexure A14) and copy of the Memorandum dated 08.02.2023 issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure A15), further directing the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred OP (CAT) No.37/2025 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The Hon’ble High Court observed that once the Tribunal found the inquiry was vitiated by not allowing the applicant to adduce crucial evidence, the appropriate course of action would have been to set aside the report and direct a further inquiry, rather than simply directing the applicant to file an objection under Rule 15(2) of the Rules, thereby remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for re-evaluation of the appropriate course of action to be implemented, based on its own findings regarding the vitiated inquiry. In the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant being vitiated, deserves to be set aside.

S SARALADEVI

9 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following judgments:

1) (2009) 2 SCC 570 – Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & others.

2) (2024) SCC Online SC 365- Raghunatha & Another vs. State of Karnataka.

3) (2011) 6 SCC 376 – Commissioner of Police, Delhi & others vs. Jai Bhagwan.

4) (2019) 4 SCC 522 – Digamber Vaishnav & another vs. Sate of Chhattisgarh.

5) (2010) 10 SCC 539 – Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

6) (1984) 2 SCC 578 – Arjun Chaubey vs. Union of India & Others.

7) (2024) SCC Online SC 541 – Sandeep Kumar vs. GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri & others.

8) (2025) SCC Online SC 370 – Lalitha vs. Vishwanath & others.

9) (2013) 4 SCC 301 – Nirmala J Jhala vs. State of Gujarat & another.

S SARALADEVI

10 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

8. Detailed reply statement has been filed by the Respondents. Learned Counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing the respondents submitted that the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chennai Zone had forwarded CPGRAMS complaint dated 01.04.2019 to the Director General of Vigilance, South Zonal Unit, Chennai, as per letter dated 22.04.2019. The said complaint was purportedly from one Shri S.Jamal for initiating appropriate action as deemed fit by conducting an inquiry into the matter mentioned in the complaint. It was stated that on the preliminary oral inquiry conducted, the originator of the CPGRAMS complaint appears to be a Group ‘A’ officer named Shri Ajitesh Radhakrishnan (the applicant in the OA), Joint Commissioner of the department, impersonating a person, Shri S.Jamal and the said act of Group ‘A’ officer appears to be a serious misconduct. The aforementioned Shri S.Jamal has been sending complaints through CPGRAMS earlier also. On a comparison of the aforesaid complaint with the earlier ones sent by Shri S.Jamal, it was found that the signature given in the present complaint did not tally with the earlier ones. On the preliminary oral inquiry conducted, which revealed that the mobile number mentioned in the CPGRAMS complaint belong to a Driver named Shri Daniel

S SARALADEVI

11 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

attached to the applicant. On further investigation with the said Driver, it was noticed that the applicant had borrowed his mobile phone and forwarded certain message received in the mobile phone to himself and deleted the same. It was further revealed by Shri Daniel that the message was available in his trash box which indicated that the message pertains to successful registration in the Public Grievance Portal with registration No.CBOEC/E/2019/02255. Accordingly the competent authority has issued charge memorandum dated 05.03.2021 to the applicant and proceedings for major penalty were initiated against the applicant, rejecting the defence statement submitted by the applicant, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed for conducting regular inquiry of the case. Inquiring Authority submitted its report holding that the article of charge as proved against the applicant. Tentatively accepting the said inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority forwarded the copy of the same to the applicant for submitting his representation. Pursuant to which the applicant requested for 15 days time for submission of his representation due to his father’s illness. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority granted two weeks time to submit his representation on the inquiry report. In the

S SARALADEVI

12 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

meantime, the applicant filed OA No.142/2023 before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal. The said OA came to be disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2025, directing the applicant to file objections/representations in response to Annexures A14 and A15 within 15 days from the date of the order, against which OP(CAT) No.37/2025 was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala wherein the order passed by Ernakulam Bench in OA No.142/2023 dated 08.04.2025 has been set aside and matter has been remanded back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

9. Learned Counsel submitted that recording the statement of an officer alleged of misconduct is not necessary before commencement of any investigation or preliminary inquiry. However, a statement was recorded from the applicant during the course of investigation and the same formed part of the investigation report, which was forwarded to the Competent Authority through the Directorate General of Vigilance (Headquarters) for a decision whether to initiate disciplinary action against the applicant. Shri S.Jamal was inquired on 30.04.2019 to state whether he wrote the complaint dated 01.04.2019 and registered it in CPGRAMS on 10.04.2019, it was totally denied by him. The Disciplinary Authority

S SARALADEVI

13 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

after providing an opportunity to the applicant to file his representation against the inquiry report has not issued the final order pending representation from the applicant. Hence the inquiry initiated against the applicant is not vitiated as alleged by the applicant. The Director General of Vigilance (SZU) made a verification to ascertain whether the IP address emanated from the Laptop of the applicant. Based on the confirmation given by the National Informatics Centre (NIC), it was clearly established that the CPGRAMS complaint was filed through the IP address 42.111.130.63, the Laptop of the applicant. Hence the subsequent investigation was carried out which proved that the applicant was involved in filing the complaint. Thereafter, charge memo was issued and inquiry proceedings were started. Once the disciplinary proceedings has been initiated, the same has to be brought to the logical end, i.e., a finding has to be arrived as to whether the delinquent officer is guilty of the charges levelled against him or not. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant are liable to be completed in accordance with law.

10. Learned Counsel further submitted that in para-8.7 of the Inquiring Authority’s report, it has been mentioned that Shri S.Jamal

S SARALADEVI

14 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

had informed that the complaint has not been written nor filed in the CPGRAMS portal by him in his letter dated 03.05.2019. The name of Shri S.Jamal was excluded from the witness list considering his death report from Chennai Customs. Further, the Inquiring Authority has noted that corroborative evidentiary value of the letter dated 03.05.2019 of Shri S.Jamal is in existence. Hence the arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant inasmuch as non- application of mind has no legs to stand.

11. Learned Counsel further submitted that UPSC has given its recommendation dated 27.03.2024 observing that the charges established against the charged officer constitute misconduct on his part and proposed the penalty of reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of two years with further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.

12 . Referring to the report of Director General of Vigilance dated 31.07.2019, learned Counsel submitted that it was observed that there is every possibility of the applicant lodging a CPGRAMS

S SARALADEVI

15 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

complaint impersonating Shri S.Jamal, an offender and habitual complainant against the department and recommended the proposal to issue administrative warning, the same would not prohibit the Disciplinary authority to initiate an appropriate penalty proceedings against the erring employees even for administrative misconduct as per Para1.4.9 of Vigilance Manual (Seventh Edition-2017). No right is accrued to the applicant in terms of the report of Director General of Vigilance to get exonerated from the case.

13. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

14. Article of charge framed against the applicant, the then Joint Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Zone, reads as under:

“Article-1 That the said Shri Ajitesh Radhakrishnan (Employee Code No 3830), presently working as Joint Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram Commissionerate, while working as Joint Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Customs VIII Commissionerate, Chennai Customs Zone, has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and has contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1) (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in as much as he has lodged

S SARALADEVI

16 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

a CPGRAMS complaint CBOEC/E/2019/02255 dated 10.04.2019 in the CPGRAM Portal by accessing the said Portal, using the Mobile Number of his driver Shri S.Daniel as "login id". Shri Ajitesh Radhakrishnan, by using the identity of other individual has also uploaded a copy of letter dated 01.04.2019, containing false and malicious allegations against various officers of CBIC Department without any basis and shown as signed by one Shri S.Jamal, who is in the adverse notice of the department.

2. By the above acts, Shri Ajitesh Radhakrishnan, Joint Commissioner has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant which amounts to gross misconduct and has thus contravened the provisions of Rules 3(1) (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He also failed to maintain high ethical standards and honesty thereby contravened the provisions of Rules 3(1) (vi) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He also failed to refrain himself from doing anything which is contrary to any law, rules, regulations and established practices thereby contravened the provisions of Rules 3(1)(viii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He also failed to perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities thereby contravened the provisions of Rules 3(1)(xxi) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964,

S SARALADEVI

17 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

3. By the above acts of commission and omission as mentioned in above, Shri Ajitesh Radhakrishnan, Joint Commissioner has rendered himself liable for penal action under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.”

15. The applicant submitted his statement of defence/representation on 30.04.2021. The 6th Respondent was appointed as Inquiring Authority vide communication dated 21.02.2022. After the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiring Authority, copy of which was forwarded to the applicant to submit his objection/representation. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed OA No.142/2023 before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal. Ernakulam Bench considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant rejected the contentions of the applicant inasmuch as not serving the report of the Director General of Vigilance, leading to violation of principles of natural justice as well as the Disciplinary Authority stating that he had tentatively accepted the findings of the Inquiring authority and thereby providing an opportunity to the applicant to submit his representation within 15 days, observed that the same does not disclose that the disciplinary authority has made

S SARALADEVI

18 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

up its mind to the action taken thereof. As Law prescribes that before an action is taken, the copy shall be forwarded, the applicant was given a copy of the inquiry report and his objections were called before any decision is taken. However, it was observed that denying the applicant’s request to establish his innocence by adducing evidence, opinion of an expert amounted to serious infraction of principles of natural justice, as the same was a valuable defence of the applicant to establish his case. However, having regard to the fact that the matter was only at the stage of giving representation, directed the applicant to file objections/representations in response to Annexures A14 and 15 within 15 days from the date of the order, if not already submitted. Further directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass an appropriate order thereof specifically having due regard to the observations made therein.

16. On further challenge before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala to the said order in OP (CAT) No.37/2025, the order of the Tribunal has been set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for a re-evaluation of further course of action to be implemented based on its own findings. The relevant paragraphs reads as under:

S SARALADEVI

19 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

“9. The Tribunal explicitly found that the rejection of the petitioner’s attempt to introduce the Annex.A12 expert report as a defence Exhibit was not based on any legally sustainable grounds. Despite this crucial finding regarding the vitiation of the inquiry due to denial of evidence, the Tribunal merely directed the Petitioner to file a representation.

10. Once the Tribunal found that the inquiry was vitiated by not allowing the Petitioner to adduce crucial evidence, the appropriate course of action would have been to set aside the report and direct a further inquiry rather than simply directing the Petitioner to file an objection under Rule 15(2) of the Rules.

11. It is to be noted that the Respondents did not challenge the Tribunal's adverse finding regarding the violation of natural justice. The Tribunal also failed to give reasons why Rule 15 of the Rules, should be followed, when a categorical finding had been made that the inquiry itself was vitiated. Given these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal's direction to the Petitioner to file objections to Annex. A14 and A15, needs reconsideration.

12. In the result, this O.P. is disposed of, setting aside paragraph 28 of the Tribunal’s order dated 8th April, 2025 in O.A.No.180/00142/2023, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a re-evaluation of the appropriate course of action to be implemented, based on its own findings regarding the vitiated inquiry.

S SARALADEVI

20 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

13. The Tribunal will now need to revisit its decision and determine whether to set aside the inquiry report and order a fresh inquiry, or if the remedy of filing objections under Rule 15 of the Rules is sufficient. considering its finding on the violation of natural justice.”

17. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, we find it appropriate to set aside the report of the Inquiring Authority dated 03.10.2022 (Annexure A14) and direct de-novo inquiry in the matter pursuant to the charge Memorandum dated 05.03.2021.

18. We are not inclined to accept the arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the entire disciplinary proceedings including the charge memo requires to be set aside in view of the report of the Director General of Vigilance dated 31.07.2019 for the following reasons: i. Investigation report of the Director General of Vigilance no doubt, recommends for taking administrative action of issue of administrative warning to the applicant, the finding that there is every possibility of the applicant lodging the complaint in

S SARALADEVI

21 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

CPGRAMS impersonating Shri S.Jamal, a habitual complainant against the department, cannot be ruled out. ii. The charge levelled against the applicant in the charge Memorandum is serious in nature. iii. The recommendation of the Director General of Vigilance is not binding on the Disciplinary Authority. It is trite that bodies like CVC or DG (Vigilance) function in an advisory and consultant capacity, providing suggestions rather than mandatory orders. iv. It is well settled that no third party or vigilance authority can dictate the quantum of punishment or force the Disciplinary Authority to change its decision against its independent judgment. Moreover, the said vigilance report was not relied in the departmental inquiry. v. It is essential to ascertain independently by the Disciplinary Authority whether the matter warrants initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant or not. The preliminary inquiry has been conducted by the respondents. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs. the Union of India (AIR 1964 SC 1854),

S SARALADEVI

22 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

the preliminary inquiry was held for the satisfaction of the Government whether punitive action should be taken or not against the Government servant. It was also held that the preliminary inquiry may also be held ex-parte. Such preliminary inquiry is not governed by Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. vi. As per Para1.4.8 and 1.4.9 of the Vigilance Manual (Seventh Edition-2017), there is no bar for the Disciplinary Authority to initiate an appropriate proceedings as per disciplinary procedure under the service rules even in the absence of vigilance angle.

19. It is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Union of India and others vs. Kunnishetty Satyanarayana reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28, wherein it is categorically held that a mere show cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affect the party is passed, the party is said to have any grievance.

S SARALADEVI

23 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

20. We have gone through the judgments relied upon by the applicant. In Roop Singh Negi supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that inquiry report, if based on conjectures and surmises, cannot be sustained. Suspicion, however, high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof. The said judgment could be of no assistance to the applicant as no logical end has reached in the present case based on inquiry report. Moreover, in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala inasmuch as the finding that once the Tribunal finds the inquiry was vitiated for denying the applicant to adduce crucial evidence, the appropriate course of action would have been to set aside the report directing a further inquiry rather than simply directing the applicant to file an objection under Rule 15(2) of the Rules.

21. In Raghunatha supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with the criminal proceedings, it is trite that the degree of proof required in criminal proceedings that is beyond the reasonable doubt is not the same as required under disciplinary proceedings, based on preponderance of probabilities.

S SARALADEVI

24 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

22. In Jai Bhagwan supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered judgment in the context of misconduct for demanding illegal gratification of Rs.100/- from complainant which was later returned in the presence of officials.

23. In Digamber Vaishnav supra, again the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the matter relating to criminal proceedings. In Mohd. Yunus Khan supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that holding the disciplinary proceedings against the Government employee and imposing a punishment on his being found guilty of misconduct under the statutory rules is in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings. Though the technical rules of procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure and the provisions of the Evidence Act, do not apply in a domestic inquiry, however, principles of natural justice requires to be observed strictly. The same is the view expressed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala while remanding the matter to this Tribunal.

24. In Arjun Chaubey supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that anyone who has a personal stake in an inquiry, must

S SARALADEVI

25 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

keep himself aloof from the conduct of the inquiry. The same is of no relevancy to the facts of the present case.

25. In Sandeep Kumar supra, termination of services of the applicant therein, was made without holding disciplinary inquiry. In that context Hon’ble Apex Court held that the disciplinary inquiry was totally unjust and dehorse the requirement of law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

26. Lalitha supra, has been decided in the context of criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Nirmala J Jhala supra, discussed about the scope of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings.

27. Even the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala while disposing of the OP (CAT) No.37/2025, has observed that if the inquiry proceedings are vitiated, the inquiry report ought to have been set aside directing a fresh inquiry. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant is not held to be bad in law as such charge memo cannot be quashed at this stage. Keeping in mind the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala cited supra, we find it appropriate to set aside the inquiry

S SARALADEVI

26 OA 498/2025/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH

report dated 03.10.2022, directing Inquiring Authority to hold de- novo inquiry in accordance with law. Accordingly we pass the following:

O R D E R

i. The impugned inquiry report dated 03.10.2022 issued by the Inquiring Authority, Respondent No.6 at Annexure A14 is set aside. ii. Memorandum dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure A15) issued by the Disciplinary Authority is quashed. iii. The matter is restored to the file of Respondent No.6 to hold De-novo inquiry in accordance with law and to submit the inquiry report afresh. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority shall conclude the inquiry proceedings in an expedite manner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of inquiry report. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. iv. OA stands disposed of in terms of above. No order as to costs.

sd/-

sd/-

(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)

MEMBER(A)

MEMBER(J) sd.

S SARALADEVI

S SARALADEVI