it2025_00781 — Applicant herein, a retired Assistant Salt Commissioner, was suspended and issued with a charge-sheet containing four articles of charges for violating Rules of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 on various grounds. This is the fourth time the Applicant is approaching the Tribunal and on three earlier occasions, either his OA is dismissed or the Applicant is directed to approach the authorities. Tribunal, based on the cases of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath [ AIR 2014 SC 88 ] and Chairman cum- Managing

IT Rules

Applicant herein, a retired Assistant Salt Commissioner, was suspended and issued with a charge-sheet containing four articles of charges for violating Rules of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 on various grounds. This is the fourth time the Applicant is approaching the Tribunal and on three earlier occasions, either his OA is dismissed or the Applicant is directed to approach the authorities. Tribunal, based on the cases of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath [ AIR 2014 SC 88 ] and Chairman cum- Managing Director, Coal India and others v. Ananta Saha and others [ 2011 (5) SCC 142 ] held : “Based on file notings (A-1) and decision therein, being not indicative of a conscious application of mind by the Minister who has merely affixed his signature at the assigned place, there is nothing to indicate that the Minister or the Competent Authority has taken a conscious decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant”. Hence the whole disciplinary proceeding including the order suspending the Applicant are set aside — This chunk is about a retired Assistant Salt Commissioner who has been suspended for violating CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in disciplinary proceedings initiated against him four times. The chunk provid... — Facts: Applicant herein filed this OA for the fourth time in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him for violating CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 on various grounds. Earlier in similar cases, three OAs filed by the Applicant were dismissed and on one occasion, the Applicant was directed to approach the authorities. Applicant, an Assistant Salt Commissioner retired from service on 30-6-2013. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for his lapses while working containing four articles of charges which are narrated in the judgment. In the present OA, he is challenging the decision of the Competent Authority to place him under suspension and to initiate disciplinary proceedings vide A-1 as null and void and to pronounce the suspension as ultra vires. The Applicant contends that there is nothing in the file notings to show that the Competent Authority applied his mind to suspend him. The Respondents justified their stand in their reply. The Tribunal examined the case and heard both the sides. The main reason which arose in this case was due to the Applicant criticizing the Respondents regarding existing policies which according to the Applicant is inconsistent with the legal rights of salt farmers. The Respondents appear to treat the behaviour of the Applicant as a maverick or a stormy petrel. The Applicant states that he being a retired official, only the Minister of the Respondent Department is the Competent Authority to punish him. Applicant states that the approval obtained from the Minister concerned to issue the charge-sheet and start disciplinary proceedings against him is only an eye wash as the Minister concerned merely affixed his signature in the charge-sheet submitted by the disciplinary authorities without any reason fully relying on the statement of official of the Ministry. To substantiate his statement, the Applicant relied on the decision of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath [ AIR 2014 SC 88 ]. Paras. 39 and 40 of the judgment are reproduced to sustain the statement of the Applicant. According to the Applicant, the disciplinary authority has not applied his mind independent of the narratives placed before him and hence there is “cognitive bias” on the part of the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Minister-in-charge who approved the charge-sheet. Referring to the Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar [ 2003 (2) SCR 387 ], the Applicant contends that the Disciplinary Authority should not act under the dictates of another body and disable himself from the dictates of lower authorities from exercising his discretion. That statement in the above case is made bearing reliance on various other cases explained in the judgment. Based on the above direction, the Tribunal held:

IT Rules

Applicant herein, a retired Assistant Salt Commissioner, was suspended and issued with a charge-sheet containing four articles of charges for violating Rules of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 on various grounds. This is the fourth time the Applicant is approaching the Tribunal and on three earlier occasions, either his OA is dismissed or the Applicant is directed to approach the authorities. Tribunal, based on the cases of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath [ AIR 2014 SC 88 ] and Chairman cum- Managing Director, Coal India and others v. Ananta Saha and others [ 2011 (5) SCC 142 ] held : “Based on file notings (A-1) and decision therein, being not indicative of a conscious application of mind by the Minister who has merely affixed his signature at the assigned place, there is nothing to indicate that the Minister or the Competent Authority has taken a conscious decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant”. Hence the whole disciplinary proceeding including the order suspending the Applicant are set aside — This chunk is about a retired Assistant Salt Commissioner who has been suspended for violating CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in disciplinary proceedings initiated against him four times. The chunk provid... — Facts: Applicant herein filed this OA for the fourth time in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him for violating CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 on various grounds. Earlier in similar cases, three OAs filed by the Applicant were dismissed and on one occasion, the Applicant was directed to approach the authorities. Applicant, an Assistant Salt Commissioner retired from service on 30-6-2013. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for his lapses while working containing four articles of charges which are narrated in the judgment. In the present OA, he is challenging the decision of the Competent Authority to place him under suspension and to initiate disciplinary proceedings vide A-1 as null and void and to pronounce the suspension as ultra vires. The Applicant contends that there is nothing in the file notings to show that the Competent Authority applied his mind to suspend him. The Respondents justified their stand in their reply. The Tribunal examined the case and heard both the sides. The main reason which arose in this case was due to the Applicant criticizing the Respondents regarding existing policies which according to the Applicant is inconsistent with the legal rights of salt farmers. The Respondents appear to treat the behaviour of the Applicant as a maverick or a stormy petrel. The Applicant states that he being a retired official, only the Minister of the Respondent Department is the Competent Authority to punish him. Applicant states that the approval obtained from the Minister concerned to issue the charge-sheet and start disciplinary proceedings against him is only an eye wash as the Minister concerned merely affixed his signature in the charge-sheet submitted by the disciplinary authorities without any reason fully relying on the statement of official of the Ministry. To substantiate his statement, the Applicant relied on the decision of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath [ AIR 2014 SC 88 ]. Paras. 39 and 40 of the judgment are reproduced to sustain the statement of the Applicant. According to the Applicant, the disciplinary authority has not applied his mind independent of the narratives placed before him and hence there is “cognitive bias” on the part of the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Minister-in-charge who approved the charge-sheet. Referring to the Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar [ 2003 (2) SCR 387 ], the Applicant contends that the Disciplinary Authority should not act under the dictates of another body and disable himself from the dictates of lower authorities from exercising his discretion. That statement in the above case is made bearing reliance on various other cases explained in the judgment. Based on the above direction, the Tribunal held:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text