RAJENDRA SINGH vs DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING on 12 November 2026

1. The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Kartavya Bhawan-3, Janpath, New Delhi 110001.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Kartavya Bhawan-3, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001.

3. Shri Rajeev Kumar Khare, the then Under Secretary, A.V.D.-II(B), Department of Personnel & Training, Kartavya Bhawan-3, Janpath New Delhi - 110001. Presently posted as The Under-Secretary, Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, Transport Bhawan (Parivahan Bhawan) 1, Parliament Street (Sansad Marg), New Delhi-110001

(Respondent No. 3 to served through Respondent No. 2)

.... RESPONDENTS

[By Advocate :Mr. Sushil Kr. Pandey)

ARTI

ARTI

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) The applicant, a retired Public Prosecutor of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), has filed the present Original Application challenging the decision dated 03.07.2026, whereby his complaint dated 22.06.2026 against Respondent No. 3, the then Under Secretary, A.V.D.-II(B), Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), was rejected.

2. The grievance of the applicant is that his Supplementary Representation dated 20.09.2025, submitted through proper channel against the UPSC advise in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was not placed before the competent authority, i.e. the Hon'ble Minister of State, before approval of the proposal on 30.09.2025 and issuance of the final order dated 06.10.2025.

3. It is submitted that the said representation was received in the office of the Hon'ble Minister as well as in the concerned Department but was not brought to the notice of the competent authority. The applicant alleges that Respondent No. 3 deliberately withheld the aforesaid material document and, accordingly, submitted a complaint dated 22.06.2026 seeking an independent inquiry in terms of Para 4 of the DoPT O.M. dated 09.10.2024.

4. The further grievance of the applicant is that the aforesaid complaint was examined by the same Section and under the supervision of the officer against ARTI

ARTI

whom allegations had been levelled, and was rejected vide decision dated 03.07.2026 without affording him an opportunity of hearing or passing a reasoned and speaking order. The applicant, therefore, seeks quashing of the said decision and a direction for fresh examination of his complaint by the Joint Secretary/Additional Secretary in charge of Administration, independently of the concerned Section and the officer complained against.

5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material placed on record.

6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we find that the relief sought in the present OA is essentially consequential to the applicant's grievance regarding non- consideration of his Supplementary Representation dated 20.09.2025 before passing the final order dated 06.10.2025 in the disciplinary proceedings. The validity of the said final order is admittedly the subject matter of separate proceedings before this Tribunal. Therefore, the issues relating to the receipt, movement and alleged non-placement of the Supplementary Representation before the competent authority can appropriately be examined in those proceedings, wherein the legality of the final order dated 06.10.2025 is under challenge.

7. The applicant seeks an independent examination of his complaint dated 22.06.2026 in terms of the DoPT O.M. dated 09.10.2024. However, the rejection of a complaint by the departmental authorities, in itself, does not automatically entitle an applicant to the issuance of a direction for a fresh inquiry, particularly when the underlying grievance forming the basis of the complaint is already the ARTI

ARTI

subject matter of separate adjudication. No independent enforceable right or prejudice warranting interference in the present proceedings has been established.

8. We also find that the applicant cannot seek adjudication of the same underlying controversy through separate proceedings merely by assailing the subsequent departmental decision on his complaint. The grounds relating to alleged suppression of the Supplementary Representation and violation of the principles of natural justice can be urged in the pending proceedings challenging the final order, where the relevant departmental records may be examined.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any sufficient ground to entertain the present OA or issue the directions sought therein. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed at the admission stage.

10. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present OA and shall not prejudice the applicant's rights and contentions in the separate proceedings challenging the final order dated 06.10.2025, which shall be decided on their own merits, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

(Sanjeeva Kumar) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A) Member (J)

/arti/

ARTI

ARTI

ARTI 2026.11.12 16:44:43+05'30' ARTI