Delhi High Court Dismisses UoI Plea Against CAT Order Quashing Penalty Imposed On DRDO Scientist
The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India and others, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had set aside the penalty imposed on Dr. Anil Kumar Tyagi, a scientist previously serving in the Defence Institute of Advance Technology (DIAT).
The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Saurabh Banerjee found no reason to disagree with the Tribunal's finding, noting that the Disciplinary Authority's order imposing the penalty was based on "no evidence and, in fact, contrary to the record".
Background of the Case
The Union of India filed the petition challenging the order dated 17 July 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had allowed Dr. Tyagi's Original Application (O.A. No. 138/2019) and set aside the penalty imposed on him.
Dr. Tyagi had been penalised by reducing his salary by two pay levels, with the reduced pay continuing until his retirement. However, he was still allowed to receive his regular annual salary increments during this period.
The disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Tyagi—who served as Scientist 'F'/'G', Officer-in-Charge of the Information, Centre & Library (IC&L), and Finance Officer at DIAT, Pune, between 2006 and 2008—were based on four charges alleging financial and procedural irregularities under Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964:
Article I (Procurement): Allegedly purchasing books at prices far higher than the catalogue or approved rates, in some cases up to 13 times the listed price, resulting in financial loss to the public exchequer.
Article II (Procedure): Allegedly placing purchase orders directly with unregistered vendors without bidding or negotiations, contrary to prescribed purchase procedures that capped such purchases at ₹5,000.
Article III (Overpayment): Allegedly approving excess payments for book purchases without approval from the competent authority and without following mandatory pre-audit procedures, in violation of financial propriety rules.
Article IV (Journal Purchase): Allegedly subscribing to the costly “Nature Journal” (amounting to ₹26,39,433, including a 100-year back file) through a dealer charging commission, instead of purchasing directly from the publisher, and allegedly without sufficient demand.
While the Inquiry Officer (IO) found Articles I, II and III to be only partially proved, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) disagreed with the IO's findings on Article IV and, by order dated 11 April 2018, held Articles I, II and III as partially proved and Article IV as fully proved, leading to the imposition of the penalty.
Tribunal's Findings and High Court's Affirmation
The Tribunal had set aside the penalty, relying on the procedural flaws and the equivocal nature of the IO's report. The Tribunal noted the IO was in an "utter confused state of mind," especially regarding Articles I and II, where the IO initially stated the allegations were "not found substantiated" or "not found established," but then added further observations.
Upholding the CAT order, the High Court emphasized that the IO, regarding Articles I, II, and III, had initially found the charges as framed "not proved," but then proceeded to find them partially proved based on "other assumptions" that were not part of the charges framed against Dr. Tyagi.
Regarding Article IV, the High Court concurred with the Tribunal that the purchase of the 'Nature Journal' was approved by the Executive Council (EC) headed by the Vice Chancellor (VC), the highest authority of the institution. The bench observed that once the highest authority had approved the purchase, the charges should have failed on this ground.
Furthermore, concerning the financial loss aspect of Article IV (dealing with dealer commission), the High Court held that the Tribunal had rightly found that it was a "collective decision," and since the invoices passed through various levels of scrutiny and approval, Dr. Tyagi alone could not have been faulted.
The Court also noted that the Disciplinary Authority's eventual penalty order dated April 11, 2018, was a "non-speaking order".
The petitioners sought re-assessment of the evidence, relying on the Tribunal's observation that the IO's findings reflected a lack of evidence and insufficient reasoning. The Bench rejected this plea, stating that re-assessment of evidence is "not permissible".
Consequently, the High Court found no merit in the petition, dismissing it. The Court directed that all consequential benefits of the Tribunal's Order must be released to Dr. Tyagi within a period of eight weeks from the date of the decision.
Union of India & Ors. v. Dr. Anil Kumar Tyagi
[W.P.(C) 12016/2022] Date of Decision: December 05, 2025
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Swarnil Dey, Advocate