Remanded

Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure & Anr. v. Harish Narula

Delhi HC11 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/9567/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment sets aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that quashed a Charge Memorandum due to a lack of oral evidence. The High Court, allowing a writ petition, remanded the case for a holistic consideration of the respondent's admission of documents and other evidence. The Court explicitly refrained from forming an opinion on the merits of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Tribunal restored with original OA number, requesting holistic consideration of pleadings and evidence.

Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~42

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 11.07.2025

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9567/2025

¶4

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE & ANR. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Shaswat Kumar Pandey, Advs. versus HARISH NARULA .....Respondent

¶6

Through: Ms. Aanchal Anand, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

¶7

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶8

CAV 251/2025

¶9

Ms. Aanchal Anand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, enters appearance on advance notice. 2. In view of the same, the caveat stands discharged.

¶10

W.P.(C) 9567/2025 & CM APPL. 40305/2025

¶11

This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 404/2024 (hereinafter referred to as the , ‘O.A.’), titled Harish Narula v. Union of India & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent herein and quashed the Charge Memorandum dated 29.06.2018 along with all consequential proceedings thereto. The respondent has also

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

Signed W.P.(C) 9567/2025 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:15.07.2025 18:07:16

¶15

been held entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with law. 4. The only ground on which the Impugned Order has been passed is that the petitioners did not lead any oral evidence in support of the Charge Memorandum dated 29.06.2018. The learned Tribunal, placed reliance on the Judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Shameem Akhtar, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14747, and Union of India & Ors. v. Ritu Chaudhary, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12063, to observe that leading of oral evidence was essential.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners, in challenge to the aforesaid finding, has drawn our attention to paragraph 11.1 of the Enquiry Report dated 18.03.2020, wherein the Enquiry Officer specifically recorded as under:

¶17

“.....The Charged Officer-2 i.e. Sh. Harish Narula submitted an acknowledgement on 08.01.2019 stating that he had inspected the originals of all the documents listed in Annexure-III of the charge memo and that "I am satisfied with the authenticity and genuineness of these documents-total 41 pages seen." CO's written communication of date 08.01.2019 signed by the CO-3 was taken on record of the inquiry”.

¶18

He submits that the documents had been admitted by the respondent and, therefore, even in the absence of any oral evidence, the charge against the respondent was made out.

¶19

The above submission is vehemently disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice. She submits that though the documents were admitted by the respondent, their contents still had to be proved by the petitioners. She further

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

Signed W.P.(C) 9567/2025 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:15.07.2025 18:07:16

¶23

submits that there were other important Circulars and circumstances which clearly showed that no case was made out against the respondent.

¶24

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶25

In the present case, the learned Tribunal has not considered the effect of the admission of the documents by the respondent on the enquiry proceedings. It has not opined whether such admission was sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent. It has also not considered the other submissions which the learned counsel for the respondent sought to urge in support of the plea that no case was made out against the respondent in the enquiry proceedings and that there was a total lack of evidence.

¶26

In view of the above, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respondent, we set aside the Impugned Order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal. We remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal by restoring the O.A. to its original number.

¶27

We request the learned Tribunal to consider the rival contentions of the parties holistically.

¶28

The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 4^th August, 2025.

¶29

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute, including whether the mere admission of the documents by the respondent was sufficient to prove the charges against the respondent. All these issues shall remain open to be

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

Signed W.P.(C) 9567/2025 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:15.07.2025 18:07:16

¶33

adjudicated by the learned Tribunal on their own merits.

¶34

The petition, along with the pending application, is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶35

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶36

RENU BHATNAGAR, J

¶37

JULY 11, 2025 / bsn/p/kj/DG

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Page 4 of 4

¶40

Signed W.P.(C) 9567/2025 By:PRIYADARSHANI JAIN Signing Date:15.07.2025 18:07:16

Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure & Anr. v. Harish Narula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure & Anr. v. Harish Narula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Pfizer Limited through Constituted Attorney Mr Samir Kazi Vs Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi & Ors.

Davinder Pal Singh Vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee & Ors.

Cdr Yogesh Mahla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Jat Vs Commissioner of Customs

Ushodaya Enterprizes Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

August Attorneys LLP Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sh. Vineet Airy & Anr. Vs Delhi Cantonment Board

Hardeep Singh Saini & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shaista Siddiqui Vs Delhi Waqf Board

Ssc and Anr. Vs Rajesh Kumar

Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs Ex Asi Jangjeet Singh

Sunil Anand Burak and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. Vs Dorothy John