W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 1 of 25

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 02.02.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 27.02.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 27.02.2026

+ W.P.(C) 1053/2026, CM APPL. 5101/2026 & CM APPL.

5102/2026

UNION OF INDIA& ANR .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC,

Ms. Astu Khandelwal, Ms.

Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush

Tanwar, Mr. Arpan Narwal and

Mr. Kushagra Malik, Advs.

versus

SAMEER DANYADEV WANKHEDE .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Nidesh Gupta and Mr.

Saurabh Kirpal, Sr. Advs. with

Mr. Jatin Parashar, Mr. T.

Singhdev, Mr. Shadab Anwar,

Mr. Rohit Bhagat, Mr.

VritiGurjal, Mr. Samarth

Luthra, Mr. Bikram Dwivedi,

Mr. Jimut Baran Mohapatra,

Mr. Gursimar Preet Singh, Ms.

Aprajita and Ms. Yamini Singh,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. While invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners pray for

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 2 of 25

issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the

order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred

to as ‘CAT/the Tribunal’] on 19.01.2026 in O.A. No. 3258 of 2025

while quashing the following Articles of Charges at the initial stage:-

“Article of Charge 1

That Shri Sameer Wankhede, despite having been formally

detached from the Narcotics Control Bureau on 02.01.2022 and

hence with no mandate relating to investigation of Case No.

94/2021 (NCB), wilfully and deliberately sought sensitive and

confidential information from Shri. Japan Babu, the then

Departmental Legal Advisor (DLA) of NCB, on 02.06.2022, as

evidenced by the telephonic transcript filed by the officer himself

before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Annexure-12, Affidavit-

in-Rejoinder dated 07.06.2023).

By the aforesaid acts of commission and omission, Shri Sameer

Wankhede, Ex Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB),

Mumbai, has failed to maintain absolute integrity at all times;

behaved in a way which is unbecoming of a Government servant;

failed to maintain high ethical standards and honesty; failed to

refrain from doing anything which is or may be contrary to any

law, rules, regulations and established practices; failed to perform

and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism

and dedication to the best of hi s abilities and has thereby

contravened Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(vi), 3(1)(xviii) and

3(1)(xxi) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article of Charge 2

That Shri Sameer Wankhede obtained an assurance from DLA of

NCB so as to steer the investigation of NCB case no. 94/2021

towards a predetermined outcome for ulterior motive. The extract

of transcript of recorded conversation reveals that DLA refers to a

prior ??? (gada) or promise - "???? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ????"-

that suggests some assurance having been sought earlier.

This prior assurance in any criminal investigation raises serious

doubts about its fairness and integrity. Shri Sameer Wankhede,

being the supervisory officer, was expected to conduct investigation

in a fair and transparent manner to unearth the truth. By obtaining

assurance from DIA towards a premeditated outcome, he appears

to have failed to maintain absolute integrity.

By the aforesaid acts of commission and omission, Shri Sameer

Wankhede, Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB),

Mumbai, has failed to maintain absolute integrity at all times;

behaved in a way which is unbecoming of a Government servant;

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 3 of 25

failed to maintain high ethical standards and honesty; failed to

perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of

professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities and has

thereby contravened Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(vi) and 3(1)(xxi)

of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

It is not in dispute that the impugned charge memorandum premised

upon very material and evidence which the applicant himself had

placed before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ

Petition No.9645/2023, in which an interim stay has already been

granted in his favour. Thus, the matter is sub judice before the

Hon'ble Bombay High Court.

In the above circumstances, we issue notice to the respondents. Mr.

Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel, accepts notice for the respondents.

By way of interim measure, we direct the respondents not to proceed

further with the departmental enquiry initiated against the applicant,

pursuant to the impugned charge memorandum, till the next date of

hearing.”

2. The aforesaid Articles of Charges have been quashed by

the CAT on the grounds reproduced as under:-

“12. At this stage, having regard to the factual matrix of this case, we

observe that it is the Respondents who have issued letter dated

02.04.2025 and 03.04.2025 (Annexure A/16 Colly.), further action on

which was stayed by this Tribunal vide order dated 15.04.2025 in OA

No.4975/2024. The Respondents in gross disregard to the above

mentioned stay order stopping further action on their part have moved

ahead and now resorted to issuance of major penalty/proceedings

against the applicant vide the impugned Charge Memorandum. It is

correct that preliminary inquiry is not a pre-condition for deciding a

further action to initiate disciplinary action under Rule 14 of the CCS

(CCA) Rules, 1965. However, action of Respondents, particularly, in

issuing the letter dated 03.04.2025 at page 415 of the paper book

wherein the attendance of the applicant has been sought in vigilance

investigation being conducted by the Respondents against the

applicant regarding initiation of Departmental action against him,

such an action was challenged by the applicant in OA No.4975/2025

and this Tribunal vide order dated 15.04.2025 passed the interim

order, which reads as under:-

“8. Meanwhile, by way of an interim measure, it is directed that the

presence of the applicant shall not be insisted upon in pursuance of

the communications dated 02.04.2025 and 03.04.2025 referred to

hereinabove.”

12.1. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid stay on the part of the

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 4 of 25

Respondents seeking attendance of the applicant in connection with

initiation of disciplinary action against him, now they have resorted to

issuance of impugned Charge Memorandum dated 18.08.2025 under

Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. This action on the part of the

Respondents is full of highhandedness and taken in a tearing hurry

with the intentions to somehow or other, to fix the applicant. Such an

action by the Respondents, who are required to uphold the rule of law

and provide a reasonable opportunity to the applicant to place his

case, is not acceptable and is held to be a harassment and humiliation

of a public officer. The motive involved in the issuance of the charge

sheet is driven by the above biased considerations, and the inquiry

would be a mere farcical show, the conclusion of which is already

well known. Hence, we interfere at this stage itself to avoid further

harassment and humiliation of the applicant.

13. Further, we do not agree with the contention of the learned Senior

Counsel for the Respondents when he drew our attention to Rule 14

(2) of the Rules ibid and put forth an argument that disciplinary

authority himself can inquire into the allegations or conduct an

inquiry by appointing an authority to inquire into the charges. We, in

view of reasons given in para ibid (12.1) hold that this contention of

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant is not applicable

in this case.

14. The Respondents' decision to proceed with the impugned

Departmental action is vitiated by grave procedural impropriety,

malice in law and abuse of process. Even otherwise, the Respondents

conduct in compelling the applicant to disclose his defence in the

Departmental proceedings despite the applicant having already

placed the relevant call transcription on record by way of rejoinder in

the criminal proceedings, is manifestly unfair and exposes the

applicant to undue and irreversible prejudice. The deliberate issuance

of the impugned Charge Memorandum in the teeth of the subsisting

interim direction of this Tribunal constitutes wilful disobedience and

gross contempt amounting to conscious interference with the due

course of justice and fair play and direct affront to the authenticity

and sanctity of the Order of this Tribunal. The chain of events

unmistakeably demonstrates that the impugned Charge Memorandum

bears no real nexus with the purported allegations but appears to be

retaliation of Respondents arising out of a number of decisions in the

matters of the applicant and also is looked as an endeavour to stall

the promotion of the applicant. Such conduct is ex facie demonstrative

of malice in law and personal vendata and colourable exercise of

power.

15. Illegality is writ large of the fact that the charges are vague and

indefinite and containing bald and omnibus charge without material

particulars and even without List of Witnesses which by itself

rendering the impugned Charge Memorandum violative of principles

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 5 of 25

of natural justice as authoritatively held by the Hon'ble Delhi High

Court in Shameem Akhtar (supra), wherein it has been categorically

held that a charge sheet not supported by any list of witness(es) or

evidentiary foundation is unsustainable in law. The mechanical

manner and undue haste with which the Respondents have acted in the

present matter further expose a predetermined mindset, non-

application of mind and an overzealous alacrity, wholly incompatible

with the wholly incompatible with the fairness and reasonableness

mandated by law, leaving no manner of doubt that the Respondents

were bent upon penalizing the applicant irrespective of the merits of

the case.

16. The applicant's counsel has rightly pleaded that the impugned

Charge Memorandum suffers from patent violation of the Rule (3) and

Rule (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The provisions contained in

Rules 14 (3) and 14 (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

17. It is well-settled that a Charge Memorandum must contain all

relevant particulars, including the list of relied-upon documents and

witnesses, so as to enable the charged officer to effectively defend

himself. However, from the perusal of the impugned Charge

Memorandum dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure A/1), we find that in the

Annexure-IV of the impugned Charge Memorandum it is stated that

"List of Witnesses by whom the Article of Charges framed against Shri

Sameer Wankhede, ExZonal director, Narcotics Conrol Bureau

(NCB), Mumbai are proposed to be sustained. ' NIL". Although the

Respondents have annexed four documents in support of the charges

levelled against the applicant by the said impugned Charge

Memorandum, however, the said documents cannot be proved without

a list of witness(es). The identical issue had arisen for consideration

before the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 438/2023 -

Smt. Sushmita Saha v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India &

Others, decided on 20.01.2025, wherein the coordinate Bench by

referring the decisions of the Hon'ble the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

18. In view of the above observations and findings recorded by the

Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 438/2023 - Smt.

Sushmita Saha v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Others

(supra), the issue raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is no

longer res integra. As such we hold that due to the above patent

illegality while issuing the impugned Charge Memorandum, the same

is void ab initio.

19. We further observe that the call transcriptions relied upon for

issuance of the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 18.08.2025

constitute the very substratum of the criminal proceedings presently

pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. In such

circumstances, insisting upon the applicant to disclose his defence or

adduce evidence in the Departmental proceedings would amount to

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 6 of 25

compelling the applicant to prejudice his defence in the judicial

proceedings. It is a settled proposition of law that Departmental

proceedings should not compel an accused employee to disclose his

defence in parallel criminal proceedings where the allegations, facts

and evidence are common. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank

of India v. R.B. Sharma, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 27, and Capt. M.

Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC

679, has been held that if continuation of a Departmental inquiry has

the potential to prejudice the defence of an employee in a criminal

case involving identical facts, the disciplinary proceedings deserve to

be deferred. Accordingly, the Respondents' insistence on proceeding

with the inquiry, despite the pendency of the said criminal matter on

the same set of facts, is legally untenable and contrary to the settled

principles of natural justice.”

3. In the considered view of this Bench, the following issues

require adjudication:

i. Whether the Articles of Charges issued to an employee without

any List of Witnesses is liable to be quashed at the threshold.

ii. Whether the scope of judicial review in a Petition filed by an

employee against the Article of Charges/Imputations is wide enough

to set it aside at the threshold on technical grounds.

4. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,

the relevant facts are required to be noticed in brief. The Respondent

is an Officer belonging to Indian Revenue Services and is currently

serving as an Additional Director in DGTS, Chennai. In August 2020,

he joined the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) as the Zonal Director

on loan basis. On 02.10.2021, based on a secret information regarding

consumption of narcotics substances, search and seizure proceedings

were carried at Green Gate, Mumbai Port Trust and Cordelia Cruise,

which ultimately resulted in registration of NCB Case No. 94/2021

(Cordelia Cruise Case).

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 7 of 25

5. Thereafter, an affidavit was brought to the notice of the NCB in

which it was alleged that the accused persons facilitated a conspiracy

to extort Rs. 25 crores (subsequently settled at Rs. 18 crores) from the

family of an accused in the said case, thereby resulting in a payment

of Rs. 50 lakhs. On 02.01.2022, the Respondent was formally

detached from the NCB. The Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a

special investigating team in order to conduct a separate enquiry.

6. When the Final report was submitted by the Special Enquiry

Team before the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’), procedural

lapses by the Respondent in the investigation of Cordelia Cruise Case

were alleged. The CBI, on 11.05.2023, registered a regular case

bearing No. RC/217/2023/A/0008 under Section 7, Section 7A and

Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with

Section 120B and Section 388 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against

various accused persons including the Respondent. In substance, it

was alleged that the accused persons exploited their official position

and acted in criminal conspiracy with the private individuals. It was

alleged that the Respondent conspired to extort Rs. 25 crores

(subsequently settled at Rs. 18 crores) from the family of an accused

in the said case, with Rs. 50 lakhs allegedly received as bribe.

7. Accordingly, the Respondent preferred W.P.(ST) No.

9645/2023 captioned Sameer Danyadev Wankhede v. Union of India

& Ors., in the Bombay High Court challenging the registration of

Regular Case by the CBI wherein the Court directed the CBI not to

undertake any coercive action against the Respondent.

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 8 of 25

8. On 13.08.2023, a rejoinder was filed by the Respondent before

the Bombay High Court along with a call transcript of the Respondent

with one Sh. Japan Babu, the then Departmental Legal Advisor

(DLA), NCB. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said transcript

reveals that despite the Respondent’s de-attachment from the NCB, he

attempted to extract official and confidential information and sought

assurance from the DLA, NCB to manipulate and steer the

investigation in a manner suited to him.

9. On 12.12.2024, the Respondent filed an Original Application

(O.A.) No. 4975/2024 before the CAT, Delhi challenging and seeking

to quash and set aside three letters dated:

i. 21.06.2024 containing direction to conduct vigilance

investigation with respect to mis-declaration/concealment of

Respondent’s private visits to foreign countries.

ii. 27.06.2024 (to NCB) containing direction to conduct enquiry

with respect to the manner in which the investigation was

conducted in the Cordelia Cruise case by the respondent.

iii. 27.06.2024 (to CBI) containing direction to conduct

investigation with respect the sale/purchase of expensive

watches by the petitioner.

10. During its hearing on 12.12.2024, the Respondent produced

letters dated 02.04.2025 and 03.04.2025 and the Tribunal, on

15.04.2025, proceeded to pass an Order directing the personal

presence of the Respondent not be insisted upon pursuant to the

communications in the aforesaid two letters.

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 9 of 25

11. Subsequently, the Respondent filed O.A. 2835/2024

challenging the adoption of sealed cover procedure in his promotion

case, and it came to be allowed by the CAT on 17.12.2024. On

15.07.2025, the personal presence of Chairman, Central Board of

Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) was directed by the CAT in a

proceeding alleging non-compliance of the order passed on

17.12.2024. The Union of India filed a writ petition in this Hon’ble

Court challenging the order dated 17.12.2024 on 29.07.2025, but it

came to be dismissed on 28.08.2025. A review of the same was also

dismissed. An SLP was filed by the Union of India, where the

exemption of personal presence of Chairman, CBITC was granted;

however, the Tribunal was permitted to proceed with the hearing of

the contempt matter. Ultimately, the SLP was dismissed on

19.01.2026.

12. On 18.08.2025, a Charge Memo was issued against the

Respondent, which was stayed by the CAT on 27.08.2025 in O.A.

3258/2025. A writ petition bearing no. W.P. (C) No. 339/2026 was

filed in this Hon’ble Court challenging the order passed by the CAT

on 27.08.2025 in O.A. 3258/2025. This Hon’ble Court, vide its order

dated 12.01.2026, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition with

directions to decide the O.A. on 14.01.2026 or within the next 10 days

of 14.01.2026. The Ld. Tribunal, vide its order dated 14.01.2026,

reserved the O.A. No. 3258/2025 for judgment, and on 19.01.2026,

allowed the O.A. and quashed and set aside the Charge Memo.

13. Therefore, the present Petition.

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 10 of 25

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

14. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner contends that the

learned Tribunal exceeded their jurisdiction by quashing the Charge

Memorandum at the threshold. Reliance is placed on Union of India

v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana

1

, to contend that a char

gesheet does not infringe any legal right of the delinquent employee;

judicial interference at such a premature stage is generally barred

unless there is a total lack of jurisdiction or the chargesheet is ex facie

without any authority of law.

15. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the

Respondent rushed to the Tribunal without exhausting the internal

remedy of filing a reply against the Chargesheet as provided in Union

of India v. Ashok Kacker

2

.

16. The learned counsel also contended that the learned Tribunal

wrongly quashed the Charge Memo on the ground that the

Respondent would then be forced to disclose his defence in the

departmental proceedings, failing to take into consideration that the

call transcript, on which the Articles of Charges is based, was placed

on record by the Respondent himself in W.P. (ST) No. 9645/2023

before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.

17. The learned counsel added that the Tribunal has further failed to

justify the conclusion to quash the Charge Memo on the ground that

the same constitutes the very substratum of the criminal proceedings

1

(2006) 12 SCC 28

2

1995 Supp (1) SCC 180

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 11 of 25

presently pending before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Placing

reliance on State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma

3

, the learned counsel

submitted that the same constituted an error on the part of the

Tribunal.

18. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal erred in

concluding that the present charge memorandum was issued merely

because the Department was unable to take action against the

respondent in O.A. No. 4975 of 2024, when in fact the subject matter

in both the cases are distinct. The learned counsel further submitted

that the interim order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal

in O.A. No. 4975/2024 did not include any stay on the departmental

proceedings against the Respondent.

19. Finally, the learned counsel also urged that the Article of

Charges are directly founded on the call transcript and are neither

vague nor lacking in particulars, making the finding of vagueness

recorded by the Tribunal perverse. The learned Tribunal has also erred

in not appreciating that the call transcript is an admitted document by

the Respondent and hence, there was no requirement of any witness to

prove the contents.

20. The learned counsel representing the Petitioner has been heard

at length, and with their able assistance, the paper book has also been

perused.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

3

(2004) 7 SCC 27

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 12 of 25

21. The learned senior counsel for the Respondent contends that the

entire Charge Memorandum is based on the same telephonic

transcripts currently under adjudication before the Bombay High

Court in W.P. (ST) No. 9645/2023. Reliance is placed on M. Paul

Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. &Anr., 1999 (3) SCC 679 and

SBI vs. R.B Sharma, 2004 (7) SCC 27 to showcase that while a

criminal adjudication is ongoing, disciplinary proceedings ought be

stayed.

22. It was contended by the learned counsel that the Department is

attempting to bypass the protection of no ‘coercive action’ granted by

the Bombay High Court by issuing a Charge Memo against the

Respondent.

23. It was further contended that the Charge Memorandum violates

the mandatory requirements of Rule 14(3) and 14(4) of the CCS

(CCA) Rules, 1965 as the ‘List of Witnesses’ was explicitly marked

as ‘NIL’.

24. It is also submitted that the Articles of Charge were found to be

vague, indefinite, lacked material particulars and comprised of bald

and omnibus allegations.

25. The learned counsel representing the Respondent has also filed

detailed written submissions which have been carefully examined too.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :

26. In substance, the Articles of Charges have been quashed by the

CAT on the following grounds:-

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 13 of 25

i. The issuance of the Articles of Charge is in violation of the stay

order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.

4975/2024.

ii. Act of issuing Article of Charges by the Petitioner is vitiated by

procedural impropriety, malice in law and abuse of process.

iii. The Respondent has been forced to disclose his defence in the

Departmental enquiry.

iv. The Articles of Charge are vague, indefinite, and contain bald

and omnibus charges without material particulars.

v. Article of Charges is in violation of Rule 14(3)& 14(4) of

CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 as there has been a failure to cite witnesses in

the List of Witnesses.

27. It is evident that now the stage is set for analysing the reasons

recorded for quashing of the Charge Memo by CAT.

28. Undisputedly, on 15.04.2025, the Tribunal only directed that

the personal presence of the Respondent shall not be insisted upon.

However, pursuant to the letters dated 02.04.2025 and 03.04.2025,

there was no order passed by the Tribunal restraining the Department

from issuing Articles of Charges. From the reading of the order, it

appears that the Tribunal has tried to pre-judge the issue without

realizing that the Tribunal or a Court should and, is expected to

exercise self-restraint while entertaining a petition challenging an

Article of Charge at the threshold. Interference by the Court at the

stage of issuance of Article of Charges is warranted on restricted

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 14 of 25

grounds and in rare and exceptional circumstances. At a stage, when

even an Enquiry Officer was not appointed and only an explanation

was sought from the Respondent regarding the charges that were

framed against him, the interference by the Tribunal is premature.

29. From a reading of the Impugned Order, it becomes evident that

the Tribunal has proceeded to record finding that the Respondent is a

decorated officer having received many awards and accolades and

during his tenure as the Zonal Director, NCB, various drugs, rackets

and gangs have been disintegrated. The Respondent has been credited

for busting the menace of narcotic drugs and has honestly carried out

his duties to crackdown narcotics abuse. The Tribunal has also noticed

that the Respondent has served in various National Agencies like the

IB, NIA, DRI, Customs and NCB, and was awarded by the Union

Home Minister for excellence in investigation.

30. The Tribunal has also tried to link the case raised by the

Respondent with the arrest of Sh. Sameer Khan, son-in-law of Ex-

Cabinet, Minister of Maharashtra Sh. Nawab Malik.

31. The Tribunal was not expected to record such an observation at

this stage of the proceedings since it amounts to pre-judging the issue.

At this stage, only Articles of Charge have been served to the

Respondent while granting him the opportunity to furnish his

explanation, which may or may not be accepted. In case the

explanation furnished by the Respondent is found unsatisfactory, the

competent authority may proceed to appoint an enquiry officer or

enquire the matter itself.

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 15 of 25

32. In Paragraph 14 of the Impugned Order, the Tribunal has

proceeded to record sweeping observations to the effect that they

found the Departmental action to be vitiated by grave procedural

impropriety, malice in law and abuse of process without providing

sufficient rationale behind them. In Paragraph 16 of the Impugned

Order, the Tribunal has upheld the procedural violation of Rule 14(3)

and 14(4); extracted as under:-

“16. The applicant's counsel has rightly pleaded that the impugned

Charge Memorandum suffers from patent violation of the Rule (3)

and Rule (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The provisions

contained in Rules 14 (3) and 14 (4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

are reproduced above:-

“14. Procedure for imposing major penalties .....

(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government

servant under this rule and rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall

draw up or cause to be drawn up-

(i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour

into definite and distinct articles of charge;

(ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour

in support of each article of charge, which shall contain-

(a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or

confession made by the Government servant;

(b) a list of documents by which, and a List of Witnesses by whom,

the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.

(4) (a) The Disciplinary Authority shall deliver or cause to be

delivered to the Government servant a copy of the articles of

charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or

misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each

article or charges is proposed to be sustained.

(b) On receipt of the articles of charge, the Government servant

shall be required to submit his written statement of defence, if he so

desires, and also state whether he desires to be heard in person,

within a period of fifteen days, which may be further extended for a

period not exceeding fifteen days at a time for reasons to be

recorded in writing by the Disciplinary Authority or any other

Authority authorised by the Disciplinary Authority on his behalf:

Provided that under no circumstances, the extension of time

forfiling written statement of defence shall exceed forty-five

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 16 of 25

daysfrom the date of receipt of articles of charge.””

33. In Paragraph 17 of the Impugned Order, the Tribunal observed

that the mandatory column for the ‘List of Witnesses’ in the Articles

of Charge was recorded as ‘NIL’, indicating an absence of evidence to

sustain the charges. The Tribunal, while relying on the judgment in

Union of India vs. Shameen Akhtar

4

, and on various orders passed by

the CAT, has proceeded to adjudge that, if in support of Article of

Charges, no List of Witnesses has been disclosed, there arises a

sufficient ground to quash the Article of Charges.

34. The genesis of drawing adverse inference for failure to produce

evidence can be traced to Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

(which is now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,

2023).Section 114, Illustration (g) provides that if a party withholds

the best evidence which is under its control, the Court may presume

that the evidence it produced would be unfavourable to the persons

who withheld it. This is based on the legal conception that a litigating

party is expected to produce its most cogent and compelling evidence

before the Court, failing which the court may draw an adverse

inference against its case. However, at this stage, it will be difficult to

finally opine on the aforesaid facts, particularly, when the Enquiry

Officer or the presenting office can examine the witness with the

permission of the Enquiry Officer.

35. Moreover, presenting oral evidence is not necessary if sufficient

documents are relied upon; it will not manifest an error warranting

interference provided the documentary evidence is a part of the record

4

2015 SCC OnLine Del 14747

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 17 of 25

and has been duly supplied to the delinquent employee or that he has

been given an opportunity to inspect the same, as was settled by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman

& Disciplinary Authority and Others

5

. The Tribunal has overlooked

the fact that the documents that have been relied upon by the

Department for the framing and issue of the Memorandum of Charges

were bought on record by the Respondent himself before the Hon’ble

Bombay High Court in W.P.(ST) No. 9645/2023 to support his case.

36. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shameem Akhtar (supra)

had refused to interfere with the order passed by the CAT primarily on

the ground that the Article of Charges was issued after considerable

delay for which there was no satisfactory explanation. Misconduct

alleged was during the period 2000-2003, whereas the impugned

Memorandum of Charges was issued after a delay of 08 years in the

year 2011. Similarly, the Coordinate Bench also held that the failure

to provide List of Witnesses can be one of the grounds to quash the

Article of Charges.

37. The Division Bench relied upon the judgment passed in

Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police And Ors

6

. In that case, the

Supreme Court came to a conclusion that the enquiry report was

defective as it was found to be a case of no evidence in support of the

Charge Memorandum. Such observations were made at the stage post

submission of the enquiry report, which have not been attained herein.

38. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the case of Roop Singh

5

(1997) 4 SCC 565

6

.(1999) 2 SCC 10

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 18 of 25

Negi vs. Punjab National Bank

7

, which is again a judgment passed by

the Apex Court wherein an Enquiry Report was submitted and the

Court came to a conclusion that the Department had failed to produce

sufficient evidence to make out a charge. In the present case, the

enquiry is at a mere preliminary stage of Charge memorandum, thus

the cited authority does not come to the Respondent’s rescue to

legitimise the quashing of initiation of a proceeding.

39. Similarly, in State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha

8

, the

Supreme Court held that the foundational documents were not

supplied, thus the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer was not

appropriate, particularly when proper opportunity was not afforded to

the Delinquent Officer in the enquiry.

40. Furthermore, Court has not been assisted with the core principle

of Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, regarding

adverse inference. The best evidence rule provides that a party must

produce the most reliable evidence in its control, herein, the admitted

transcripts constitute that evidence. Consequently, the failure to attach

the List of Witnesses cannot be treated as an abstract proposition of

law to quash the Articles of Charge when the primary documentary

evidence is already on record.

41. A three-judge bench of the Apex Court in Pandurang Jivaji

Apte v. Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar

9

, while adjudicating the

requirement to draw an adverse inference held that such presumption

7

(2009) 2 SCC 570

8

2010 (2) SLJ 59

9

(1981) 4 SCC 569

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 19 of 25

can be drawn only when material evidence available is found

insufficient or absent. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme

Court in Ratan Dev vs. Pasan Devi

10

.

42. Even if it is assumed that in the absence of List of Witnesses,

the Charge Memo is defective, it still remains a curable defect which

can be rectified at any point of time with the permission of the

Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry officer is not bound by the rules of

procedure while holding a domestic/disciplinary enquiry. In

substance, in a fact-finding enquiry, strict rules of evidence and

procedure are not peculiarly applicable. Furthermore, The Court also

relied on Roop Singh Negi’s (supra), but overlooked the basic

principle for drawing adverse inference as envisaged in Section 114,

Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act that allows the Court to

draw adverse inference only at an appropriate stage of the trial, which

is generally at the conclusion of the trial after appreciation of all the

evidence, not prematurely.

43. Learned senior counsel representing the Respondent relies on

the judgment passed in L.I.C. of India vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen

11

to

support his submission that in the absence of a List of Witnesses, a

Charge Memo is required to be quashed. This Court has carefully read

the aforesaid judgment. Therein, an Appeal arose from a judgment

passed in a Civil Suit that was filed after the conclusion of the

Departmental enquiry, wherein no witness was cross-examined. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the exhibition of documents in a

10

(2002) 7 SCC 441

11

(2010) 4 SCC 491

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 20 of 25

civil suit did not imply that their contents stood proved, and this

observation cannot be used to infer that a lack of such documents

thereof, vitiates the whole case of the department. Moreover, since the

present case deals with charges at the threshold stage, the cited

authority is anyway inapplicable to the facts. Moreover, in the present

case, the document that is relied upon to frame and issue the Charge

Memo is a document that was put on record by the Respondent

himself before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in W.P.(ST) No.

9645/2023 in support of his arguments.

44. The next reliance is upon a Division Bench Judgment passed in

W.P.(C) 4471/2014,captioned Union of India v. Ritu Choudhary and

connected matters, decided on 11.12.2019, wherein the Division

Bench found that there was no proper explanation for inordinate delay

in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. Similarly, the reliance

placed on the judgment passed in W.P.(C) 8652/2017captioned

Ashutosh Goel vs. State Bank of India & Ors. is also misplaced

because in the aforesaid case, the order of penalty was passed only

after the Discipline Enquiry

45. Hence, quashing of the Article of Charges against the

Respondent on alleged violation of Rule 14(3) and 14(4) of the CCS

(CCA) Rules is not sustainable at this stage.

46. The Tribunal has also observed that the issuance of such

Memorandum of Charges is a result of malice in law and abuse of

process. The Tribunal is probably linking this with its direction to

solicit the personal/physical presence of the Chairman of CBIC. It

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 21 of 25

may be one of the grounds for expediting the issuance of memo but

the Tribunal was expected to go to the substance instead of being

influenced by timing. The Tribunal was required to identify whether

the interference at this stage was absolutely necessary while recording

a finding that such issuance was malicious in law and was a result of

abuse of process.

47. Furthermore, the Tribunal’s observation that the Respondent is

compelled to disclose his defence is unreasonable. The protection

against such compulsion has been provided under Article 20(3) of the

Constitution of India. The Respondent’s claim is weakened by the fact

that he voluntarily produced the very same transcripts before the

Bombay High Court in his rejoinder. Furthermore, the CBI is

investigating the allegation of corruption against the Respondent

whereas the alleged misconduct of the Respondent in the Article of

Charges is separate and independent. The Charge Memo is not even

remotely connected with the aforesaid allegations of corruption. The

Respondent has also not been able to prove as to how he has been

forced to disclose his defence. The Respondent could have filed an

application before the Disciplinary Authority seeking postponement of

the reply, while submitting that he is being forced to disclose his

defence, which would then have been examined by the competent

authority. Interference by the Tribunal by making such strong

observations was not called for at this stage.

48. Similarly, the Tribunal in Paragraph 15 of the Impugned Order

has also erred in observing that charges are vague and indefinite and

contained bald and omnibus charges without material particulars. Both

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 22 of 25

the Articles of Charge are specific. In any case, the Respondent will

be advised to take this objection to the Enquiry Officer before the

Disciplinary Authority rather than filing an O.A. before the Tribunal.

As and when such defence is taken by the Respondent, the

Disciplinary Authority will examine the same.

49. The Tribunal has not elaborated as to how both the Articles of

Charges are vague and indefinite or contained bald and omnibus

charges particularly when it is based on the transcript of conversation

produced by the Respondent with one Sh. Japan Babu who was the

then Departmental Legal Advisor. The transcript revealed the

substance of the charges against the Respondent, namely that the

Respondent attempted to steer the investigation in the pending case in

a particular direction, sought to extract information, and endeavoured

to exert influence on the basis of a ‘promise’. Therefore, the Articles

of Charges did not warrant to be styled as vague and indefinite

containing bald omnibus charges.

50. The Tribunal has also erred in observing that the issuance of

Charge Memorandum was full of highhandedness and taken in a

tearing hurry with the intention to, somehow or other, fix the

Respondent. These observations at the stage of issuance of Charge

Memorandum, simply on the basis of impressions gathered by the

Tribunal were not justified. The issuance of the Charge Memorandum

can neither be a punishment nor does it give rise to a cause to action

enforceable in a court of law, the employer has merely shown its

intention to have a response from the Respondent, which if found

unsatisfactory, a fact-finding enquiry can be proceeded with.

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 23 of 25

51. The Tribunal has also overlooked that the recording of the

telephonic conversation was affirmatively produced by the

Respondent in 2023 before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and not

after when the Chairman of CBIC was summoned or when the Court

held that adoption of sealed procedural in absence of Charge Memo is

bad. Hence, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that the effort has

been made to fix the Respondent only due to the summoning of

Chairman, CBIC as this cannot be substantiated from the record, as

the Respondent himself had produced the aforesaid transcript in the

year 2023. Though, there is a delay of two years, it does not result in

vitiating the Charge Memorandum, particularly when the alleged

misconduct, if any, needed attention of the competent authority. As

noted above, the summoning of Chairman, CBIC may be the reason

for expediting the action, however, that cannot be the only reason to

issue Charge Memo.

52. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna

12

. In the aforesaid

judgment, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts of the case,

came to the conclusion that there was an element of malice or mala-

fide motive involved in the matter of issuance of Chargesheet. The

Court also found that the authority concerned was so biased that the

enquiry could be a mere farcical show. While recording such

observations, the Court upheld the judgment of the Hon’ble High

Court. It will be noted here that the Chief Minister made a public

announcement in that case, which helped the court to come to a

12

2001 (2) SCC 330

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 24 of 25

conclusion that there was a bias against Shri. Khanna. The ratio

decidendi in the judgment does not, in any way, lay down that in

every case, interference is required by the court at the stage of

issuance of Charge Memo containing imputations against the

delinquent employee.

53. After careful consideration, this Court is of the view that the

impugned Charge Memorandum cannot be quashed at the threshold

merely on the ground that it was not accompanied by a List of

Witnesses. In the present case, the Articles of Charges are founded

entirely upon documentary evidence which the Respondent himself

placed on record and no reliance is placed on oral testimony, therefore

this does not make out any ground validating Courts or Tribunal to

interfere in the proceedings.

54. On analysis of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana

13

; Ministry of

Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha

14

; and Union of India v.

Upendra Singh

15

, it can be clearly made out that Charge Memo and

Show Cause Notice can be quashed by the Court or Tribunal at the

initial stage of issuance only when: (1) misconduct or other regularity

alleged cannot be said to have been made out; (2) charges are contrary

to any law; (3) the Chargesheet has been issued by an authority

incompetent/patently lacking jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary

proceedings; (4) if malice on the part of the disciplinary authority is

established and an employee brings it to the notice of the Court, facts

13

(2006) 12 SCC 28

14

(2012) 11 SCC 565

15

(1994) 3 SCC 357

W.P.(C) 1053/2026 Page 25 of 25

which lead to only one conclusion that the action of initiating a

disciplinary enquiry is arbitrary and has been initiated for a mala-fide

purpose. Apart from the aforesaid reasons, the Court is not required to

interfere at the threshold and any such interference would be

premature.

55. Furthermore, it is already well-established that the scope of

judicial review against a Charge Memorandum is extremely limited. A

court or Tribunal should not normally interfere at the stage of an

issuance of a Charge Memo unless the same is issued by an authority

that lacks jurisdiction or is barred by law.

56. Consequently, we find that the interference by the Learned

Tribunal at this premature stage was unwarranted. The Respondent is

advised to exhaust his internal remedies by submitting a reply to the

Charge Memo before the Disciplinary Authority.

57. In view of the above, the Petition is allowed. The Impugned

Judgment of the Tribunal is hereby set aside.

58. All pending applications shall stand closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN , J.

FEBRUARY 27, 2026

sp/kb