Allowed¶62

Yadvendra Kumar Singh v. Sport Autority of India (Sai)

Uttarakhand HC3 Sept 2025WPSB/555/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disciplinary proceedings — major penalty under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965; Rule 14 procedure (articles of charge, statement of imputations, inquiry, hearing) not followed; proceedings vitiated; Sports Authority of India; reduction to lower stage in time-scale of pay with cumulative effect; appellate enhancement of punishment; FIR under Sections 376, 511, 506 IPC; quashing of criminal case (Criminal Misc. Application No.268 of 2013); impugned orders dated 30.10.2013 and 22.08.2017 set aside; writ petition allowed; Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital.

What did the court decide?

Both impugned orders dated 30.10.2013 and 22.08.2017 set aside; writ petition allowed accordingly. ¶62

Yadvendra Kumar Singh Vs Sport Autority of India (Sai) — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both impugned orders dated 30.10.2013 and 22.08.2017 set aside; writ petition allowed accordingly.

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the major penalty imposed by the order dated 30.10.2013 and the appellate order dated 22.08.2017 were validly imposed when the procedure prescribed under the 1965 Rules (Rule 14) — service of articles of charge, statement of imputations, inquiry and hearing — was not followed.

¶24

Court's answer

The procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the 1965 Rules was not followed: the petitioner was not served with articles of charge and a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour as required by Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 14, and the procedure prescribed thereafter in Rule 14 was not followed; this vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

Since the mandatory provisions for holding disciplinary proceedings were not followed, both the impugned orders dated 30.10.2013 and 22.08.2017 are bad in the eyes of law and deserve to be set aside.

¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (Ravindra Maithani and Alok Mahra, JJ.; judgment authored by Ravindra Maithani, J.), Writ Petition (S/B) No.555 of 2017, Yadvendra Kumar Singh v. Sports Authority of India (SAI) and others, decided 03.09.2025 (2025:UHC:7837-DB). Challenged: (i) order dated 30.10.2013 of respondent no.1 imposing a major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for three years without earning any increment, with cumulative effect, founded on an Inquiry Committee report dated 15.03.2013 prompted by an FIR for offences under Sections 376, 511, 506 IPC; and (ii) appellate order dated 22.08.2017 confirming the punishment and enhancing it by reducing pay from Rs.24,510/- to Rs.23,600/- (PB Rs. 15,600-39,100/- + GS 6600/-) for five years w.e.f. 01.11.2013 with cumulative effect and barring increments during the penalty period. The underlying criminal case had been quashed on 04.12.2014 (Criminal Misc. Application No.268 of 2013). Held: the mandatory procedure of Rule 14, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was not followed — articles of charge and statement of imputations were never served as required by Rule 14(4), nor were the subsequent steps taken — which vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings; both impugned orders are bad in law. Both orders set aside; writ petition allowed.

¶1

2025:UHC:7837-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.555 OF 2017

¶4

Yadvendra Kumar Singh …… Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Sports Authority of India (SAI) and others ……Respondents

¶7

Presence:

¶8

Mr. K.C. Tewari and Mr. Vibhor Tewari, learned counsels for the petitioner. Mr. V. K. Kaparuwan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶9

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

¶10

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶11

The challenge in this writ petition is made to the followings:-

¶12

i. Order dated 30.10.2013 passed by respondent no.1, by which a major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a period of three years without earning any increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner and;

¶13

ii. Order dated 22.08.2017 passed in Appeal, by which the punishment order dated 30.10.2013 was confirmed.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

Facts, necessary to appreciate the case of the petitioner, briefly stated as follows. An FIR was lodged against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 376, 511, 506 IPC at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, based on which, the respondent no.2 Regional Director, Sports Authority of India constituted a committee to enquire into the matter. The Committee submitted its report dated 15.03.2013. It appears that the petitioner was given a copy

¶16

¶17

2025:UHC:7735-DB

¶18

of the inquiry report, to which he made representation. Thereafter, straightaway, by the impugned order dated 30.10.2013, major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a period of three years without earning any increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner.

¶19

In between, the proceeding of the criminal case based on the FIR was quashed by order dated 04.12.2014 of this Court, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.268 of 2013 Yadavendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation for reconsideration of punishment imposed upon him and, finally, he preferred an appeal against the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale. On 22.08.2017, the appeal was dismissed and, the punishment was enhanced and the pay of the petitioner was reduced from Rs.24,510/- to Rs.23,600/- in the time scale of pay, (PB) of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- + GS 6600/- for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 01.11.2013 with cumulative effect. It was further directed that, during the period of penalty, the petitioner will not earn increments and will have effect on postponing future increments.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has never been afforded any opportunity of hearing; disciplinary proceedings may be conducted in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (“1965 Rules”) and, in the matters of imposing major penalty, Rule 14 comes into play. It is argued that the articles of charge were never framed and served upon the petitioner. Petitioner was never given the material that was collected against him, so that he could confront the material; the procedure has at all not been followed. Petitioner was not even given any show-cause notice before imposing the punishment. He

¶21

¶22

2025:UHC:7735-DB

¶23

also submits that the appellate authority also did not offer any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, based on the Inquiry Committee Report and having considered the response submitted by the petitioner, the penalty has been imposed. The Court posed a question to learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the procedure, as given under 1965 Rules, has been followed in the matter of awarding punishment to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order reveals that the procedure has not been followed.

¶25

Rule 14 of 1965 Rules gives an entire procedure in the cases

¶26

of imposing major penalties. It reads as follows:

¶27

“14. PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING MAJOR PENALTIES:

¶28

(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and rule 15, or in the manner provided by the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry is held under that Act.

¶29

(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. EXPLANATION - Where the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority.

¶30

(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-

¶31

(i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge;

¶32

(ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain-

¶33

(a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant;

¶34

(b) a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.

¶35

(4) 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 of charges is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government servant to submit, within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person.

¶36

(5)(a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted, or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint, under sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in rule 15.

¶37

¶38

2025:UHC:7735-DB

¶39

(b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the Government servant, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into the articles of charge, or may, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint, under sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose.

¶40

(c) Where the disciplinary authority itself inquires into any article of charge or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as the "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge.

¶41

(6) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority-

¶42

(i) a copy of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour;

¶43

(ii) a copy of the written statement of the defence, if any, submitted by the Government servant;

¶44

(iii) a copy of the statements of witnesses, if any, referred to in sub-rule (3);

¶45

(iv) evidence proving the delivery of the documents referred to in sub-rule (3) to the Government servant; and

¶46

(v) a copy of the order appointing the "Presenting Officer".

¶47

(7) The Government servant shall appear in person before the inquiring authority on such day and at such time within ten working days from the date of receipt by the inquiring authority of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, as the inquiring authority may, by notice in writing, specify, in this behalf, or within such further time, not exceeding ten days, as the inquiring authority may allow.

¶48

(8)(a) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant posted in any office either at his headquarters or at the place where the inquiry is held, to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits;

¶49

Provided that the Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant posted at any other station, if the inquiring authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, so permits. Note: The Government servant shall not take the assistance of any other Government servant who has three pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance.

¶50

(b) The Government servant may also take the assistance of a retired Government servant to present the case on his behalf, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the President from time to time by general or special order in this behalf.

¶51

(9) If the Government servant who has not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defence, appears before the inquiring authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government servant thereon.

¶52

(10) The inquiring authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the government servant pleads guilty.

¶53

(11) The inquiring authority shall, if the Government servant fails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead, require the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charge, and shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirty days, after recording an order that the Government servant may, for the purpose of preparing his defence:

¶54

Even after Sub-Rule 11 of Rule 14 of the 1965 Rules, elaborate procedure has been given as to how the enquiring authority shall deal with the enquiry. In the enquiry, the statement of the witnesses are to be recorded; the witnesses are to be cross examined; after the presenting authority closes its case, the Government Servant is required to state his defence orally or in writing; examination of

¶55

¶56

2025:UHC:7735-DB

¶57

witnesses on behalf of the government servant may be done and finally enquiry report is submitted.

¶58

In the instant case, the procedure, as such, has not been followed. Based on the FIR, that was lodged against the petitioner, though an Inquiry Committee was constituted, which submitted its report, but thereafter the procedure, as given under Rule 14 of 1965 Rules, has not been followed. Petitioner was not served with articles of charge, a statement of the imputations of misconduct or mis-behaviour, as provided under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 14 of 1965 Rules and the procedure, as given thereafter in Rule 14 of 1965 Rules, has not been followed. It vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings.

¶59

In view of above, this Court is of the view that since the mandatory provisions of holding the disciplinary proceedings have not been followed in the instant case, both the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law and deserve to be set aside.

¶60

The impugned orders dated 30.10.2013 and 22.08.2017 are

¶61

set aside.

¶62

The writ petition is allowed, accordingly.

¶63

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

¶64

ALOK MAHRA, J.

¶65

BALWANT SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.09.09 17:46:47 +05'30'

¶66

Dated: 03.09.2025 BS

Yadvendra Kumar Singh v. Sport Autority of India (Sai)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadvendra Kumar Singh v. Sport Autority of India (Sai)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virender Singh Ravi Vs Union of India

Abhishek Bandooni Vs State of Uttarakhand

Joginder Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Association of Combined Entrance Examination Vs Prabhat Saini

Director, Himalaya Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital Vs Lalit Mohan Tewari

C.N.S. Bishnoi Vs Centralized Pension Processing Centre