Page No.# 1/30 GAHC010198462024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4861/2024 RANDHIR KUMAR AND ANR S/O- RAMCHANDRA PRASAD JE(CIV) (GS-178439A) (NEW AE (CIV) GO- 5626F) OF 55 RCC/762 BRTF (P) VIJAYAK, C/O- 56 APO AND PRESENTLY POSTED AT HQ ADGBR (EAST) C/O- 99 APO (LAKNESHAR), GUWAHATI- 781014. 2: MUKESH KUMAR YADAV S/O- ADALAT YADAV EE(CIV) GO-3938Y) OF 55 RCC/762 BRTF (P) VIJAYAK C/O- 56 PO AND PRESENTLY POSTED AT HQ 764 BRTF (P) SWASTIK C/O- 99 APO VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-11. 2:UNDER SECRETARY (VIG-MES AND BRO) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ROOM NO. 136 KASHMIR HOUSE RAJAJI MARG NEW DELHI-11. 3:THE JOINT SECRETARY (BORDER ROADS) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD ROOM NO. 198 A SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110011. Page No.# 2/30 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN NARAINA DELHI CANTT NEW DELHI-110010. 5:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION C/O- 99 APO LANKESHWAR GUWAHATI-781014 ASSAM 6:THE COMMANDER 764 BRTF (P) SWASTIK C/O- 99 APO Linked Case : WP(C)/19/2025 RAM NARAYAN CHOUDHARY S/O- SRI SURAJ NARAYAN CHOUDHURY PRESENT UNIT 498RMPL/91 RCC (GREF) C/O- PROJECT VARTAK TEZPUR C/O- 99 APO. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-11. 2:UNDER SECRETARY (VIG-MES AND BRO) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ROOM NO. 136 KASHMIR HOUSE RAJAJI MARG NEW DELHI-11. Page No.# 3/30 3:THE JOINT SECRETARY (BORDER ROADS) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD ROOM NO. 198 A SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110011. 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN NARAINA DELHI CANT NEW DELHI-110010. 5:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION C/O- 99 APO LANKESHWAR GUWAHATI-781014 ASSAM 6:OC RCC 91 RCC C/O 99 APO PIN- 930091. Linked Case : WP(C)/5792/2025 AMAN KUMAR AND ANR S/O LATE RAM DULAR SINGH UNIT ADDRESS- 105 RCC 761 BRTF (GREF) UNDER PROJECT BRAHMANK PASIGHAT ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-930105 2: AMIT VIKAL S/O SHRI LAL SINGH VIKAL UNIT ADDRESS - 1448 BCC/761 BRTF 761 BRTF (GREF) UNDER PROJECT BRAHMANK PASIGHAT ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-931448 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Page No.# 4/30 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-11 2:UNDER SECRETARY (VIG-MES AND BRO) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ROOM NO. 136 KASHMIR HOUSE RAJAJI MARG NEW DELHI-11 3:THE JOINT SECRETARY (BORDER ROADS) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD ROOM NO. 198 A SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110011 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN NARAINA DELHI CANTT NEW DELHI-110010 5:HW CE(P) BRAHMANK C/O 99 APO – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Advocate for the petitioners :Mr. Tapan Das, Advocate Advocate for the respondents :Mr. R.K.D Choudhury, Deputy Solicitor General of India and Mr U.K. Goswami, CGC ·Date on which Judgment was reserved: 07.04.2026 ·Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 14.07.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment: Yes · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced: No Page No.# 5/30 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners raising similar issues. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposal. 2. The petitioners in are assailing before this Court the memorandum of charges dated 02.08.2024 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence and a further direction not to resort to any punitive action in the matter of consideration for further promotion to the next higher rank to which the petitioners are entitled to be considered and also for grant of non-functional upgradation and MSCP. 3. The brief facts as projected in the writ petition being W.P(C) No. 4861/2024 on the basis of which the challenge is made to the memorandum of charges issued to the writ petitioners are that the Project Vijayak recruited casual paid laborer (CPL) for the period from 21/07/2020 to 20/08/2020, during the peak COVID period and unrest in the Galwan Valley for construction work of the road for 55 Road Construction Company, Mulbek, Kargil in consultation with the Government of Jharkhand. After the recruitment, it was pointed out by the petitioner No. 2 herein that the AADHAR card information provided as identity proof by 18 casual paid laborers (CPLs) matched their names and their fathers' names with the information provided by another set of 18 CPLs of other detachments. On receiving this instruction, the payments of the first month of the 36 labourers were immediately deposited in the government treasury and no payment was made to these CPLs. The petitioner No. 1 herein was responsible for recruitment and mastering of CPLs. The petitioner No. 1 was not involved in the payment of wages as per the general guidelines for the recruitment of CPLs as circulated by the Director General Border Roads vide Page No.# 6/30 letter dated 10/5/2005. It is stated that the names of the CPLs and their fathers' names matched with the names and fathers' names of CPLs of other detachments. However, other particulars of the CPLs such as photographs, Aadhaar card number, etc. are different and the individuals were medically examined by the medical officers and also surprise/vigilance check was carried out by the officers detailed by 55 RCC, 762 TF and Project Vijayak on the ground that the petitioners had faltered by allowing incomplete and incorrect documentation while preparing medical sheets and also entering into the illegal act of fake recruitment/mastering of CPLs in connivance with other officers and thereby allowed or permitted duplicity of the names of the enrolled CPLs by approving fake names in the master rolls and thereby deliberately allowing mustering of the same CPLs in 2 master rolls in 2 different detachments of 55 RCC. A court of enquiry was instituted which had recommended initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioners. On the basis of the recommendations, the Ministry of Defense, Government of India by two separate memorandums dated 02.08.2024 had proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioners. They were served with the article of charges as also the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of the articles of charges. The petitioners were called upon to submit their reply within the time specified. The list of witnesses were enclosed as also the list of documents. The Petitioners alleging bias and violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 180 of the Army Rules, approached this court by filing this petition and this court by order dated 20.11.2024, while issuing notice by way of an ad interim relief, directed that the departmental proceedings initiated on the basis of the impugned memorandum of charges shall remain suspended. The same interim order has been extended from time to time and is still in force. Page No.# 7/30 4. The learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that under Rule 180 of the Army Act where a court of enquiry is instituted against a person and where the character of a person who is subject to the act is involved then he must be given proper opportunity of being present throughout the enquiry and/or making any statement and/or giving any evidence, he may wish to make or give, and/or cross-examining any witness whose evidence, in his opinion, affects his character or military reputation. It is submitted that this opportunity was never afforded to the petitioners. They were not even put to notice that a court of enquiry was instituted behind their back and without they being given any opportunity, the Court of enquiry recommended initiation of the departmental proceedings under CCS(CCA) Rules insofar as the petitioners are concerned. It is submitted that the Army Rules 1954 clearly lays down the procedure in respect of the conduct of courts of enquiry and Rule 180 categorically provides for affording an opportunity to a person concerned or affected when the character of a person subject to the Army act is involved. It is submitted that the court of enquiry conducted against the petitioners which culminated in recommendation for initiation of departmental proceedings under CCS(CCA) Rules has the effect of tarnishing the image of the writ petitioners and the characters of the writ petitioners are involved, they were required to be given an opportunity as mandated under the Rule 180 of the Army Rules. The further submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that this departmental proceeding has been initiated at a time when the petitioners are within the zone of consideration for promotion to the next higher post and also his claim for grant of non-functional upgradation and MSCP. It is submitted that the entire proceedings initiated under the CCS(CCA) Rules is solely on the basis of a recommendation made by the Court of enquiry. Therefore, this Court of enquiry Page No.# 8/30 which had recommended initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioners was constituted and conducted and the recommendations were made in violation of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954. It is therefore submitted that the impugned memorandum of charges and the departmental proceedings are on the basis of the court of enquiry, which was conducted contrary to the provisions of Rule 180 of the Army Rules read with the Army Act, and therefore this court should under judicial review interfere with the proceedings and set aside and quash the same. It is further submitted that there was a considerable delay in initiation of the departmental proceedings and that by itself being arbitrary and prejudicial to the petitioners, the same should be interfered with, set aside, and quashed. In support of his submissions, the petitioners relies on the following judgments: 1. Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 890; 2. Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1986 3 SCC 454; 3. State of Punjab Vs. V.K Khanna, reported in 2001 2 SCC 330; 4. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National bank, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570; 5. Naresh Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 SCC Online Gau 1523; 6. Union of India Vs. Sanjay Jethi, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 116 and 7. Government of A.P. Vs. A Venkata Naidu, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 338 5. The respondent, on the other hand, contested the case projected by the petitioners by filing their counter-affidavit. The petitioners had already filed the written statement in response to the memo of charges and has thereafter approached this court. It is submitted that since they had already filed their written statements, the Proceedings should be allowed to be carried to its logical end by the department and no judicial review at this stage is called for Page No.# 9/30 by this court. He further submits the judgment relied upon by the writ petitioners in respect of the procedure to be followed in a court of enquiry as prescribed under Rule 180 of the Army Rules are all in respect of regular Army personnel. The respondents are under the dual disciplinary authority, namely under the Army Act as also under the CCS(CCA) Rules. It is submitted that since no court-martial proceedings are initiated under the Army Act and rules against the petitioners rather recommendation was issued for initiation of departmental proceedings under CCS(CCA) rules, these judgments have no application to the facts of the present case. It is further submitted that the charges are not at all vague and the petitioners have already submitted their reply before the authorities concerned. Therefore, interference at this stage of issuance of a show-cause notice is not called for as no right insofar as the petitioners are concerned has been infringed. In support of his contentions, the learned DSGI relies upon the following judgments: 1. Mohd. Ansari v. Union of India, reported in 2017 3 SCC 740; 2. Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 3. Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565. 4. Union of India v. Ashok Kacker, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 180. 5. Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515. 6. State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 179. 6. The petitioners filed a rejoinder affidavit reiterated their statements and contentions raised in the writ petitions. 7. The learned counsel to the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record have been perused. The Judgments pressed into service have also been carefully noted. Page No.# 10/30 8. At the outset, it is necessary to reproduce the memorandum of charges of each of the petitioners and the same is extracted below: In so far as the writ petitioners in W.P(C) No. 4861/2024 is concerned, the memorandum of charges issued to the petitioners namely Shri Randhir Kumar and Shri Mukesh Kumar Yadav are extracted below: Dated 02 August, 2024 MEMORANDUM The President proposes to hold an inquiry against Shri Randhir Kumar, JE(Civ) (GS-178439A) (Now AE(Civ) GO-5626F) of 55 RCC/762 BRTF (P) Vijayak, C/O 56 APO (presently posted at HQ ADGBR (East) C/O 56 APO) under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of change (Annexure-l). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-ll). A list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III and IV). A copy of CVC's advice, contained in their OM No. 2024/DEF/BRO/VIG_Case/4/35650 dated 29.07.2024 is also enclosed. 2. Shri Randhir Kumar, JE (Civ) (GS-178439A) (Now AE(Civ) GO-5626F) is directed to submit within 15 days of the receipt of this Memorandum a written statement of his defence and also to State whether he desires to be heard in person. 3. He is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charge as are not admitted. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. 4. Shri Randhir Kumar, JE(Civ) (GS-178439A) (Now AE(Civ) GO-5626F) is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specified in Para 2 above, or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, or the orders/directions issued in pursuance of the said rule, the inquiring authority may hold the inquiry against him ex-parte. 5. 5. Attention of Shri Randhir Kumar, JE(Civ) (GS-178439A) (Now AE(Civ) GO-5626F) is invited to Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, under which no Govt Servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that Shri Randhir Kumar, JE(Civ) (GS-178439A) (Now AE(Civ) GO- 5626F) is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at his instance Page No.# 11/30 and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 6. The receipt of the Memorandum may be acknowledged. (Mangal Soren) Under Secretary to the Government of India” “Dated 02 August, 2024 MEMORANDUM The President proposes to hold an inquiry against Shri Mukesh Kumar Yadav, EE(Civ) (GO-3938Y) of 55 RCC/762 BRTF (P) Vijayak, C/O 56 APO (presently posted at 764 BRTF(P) Swastik C/O 99) under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of change (Annexure-l). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-ll). A list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III and IV). A copy of CVC's advice, contained in their OM No. 2024/DEF/BRO/VIG_Case/4/35650 dated 29.07.2024 is also enclosed. 2. Shri Mukesh Kumar Yadav, EE(Civ) (GO-3938Y) is directed to submit within 15 days of the receipt of this Memorandum a written statement of his defence and also to State whether he desires to be heard in person. 3. He is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charge as are not admitted. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. 4. Shri Mukesh Kumar Yadav, EE(Civ) (GO-3938Y) is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specified in Para 2 above, or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, or the orders/directions issued in pursuance of the said rule, the inquiring authority may hold the inquiry against him ex-parte. 5. Attention of Shri Mukesh Kumar Yadav, EE(Civ) (GO-3938Y) is invited to Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, under which no Govt Servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that Shri Mukesh Kumar Yadav, EE(Civ) (GO-3938Y) is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 6. The receipt of the Memorandum may be acknowledged. (Mangal Soren) Page No.# 12/30 Under Secretary to the Government of India” In so far as the writ petitioner in W.P(C) No. 19/2025 is concerned, the memorandum of charges issued to the petitioner namely Shri R.N Chaudhary is extracted below: ”Dated 02 August, 2024 MEMORANDUM The President proposes to hold an inquiry against Shri RN Chaudhary, JE(Civ) (GS-195230L) of 234 PWPL/55 RCC/762 BRTF (P) Vijayak, C/O 56 APO (presently posted at 498 RMPL (P) Vartak) under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of change (Annexure-l). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-ll). A list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III and IV). A copy of CVC's advice, contained in their OM No. 2024/DEF/BRO/VIG_Case/4/35650 dated 29.07.2024 is also enclosed. 2. Shri RN Chaudhary, JE(Civ) (GS-195230L) is directed to submit within 15 days of the receipt of this Memorandum a written statement of his defence and also to State whether he desires to be heard in person. 3. He is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charge as are not admitted. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. 4. Shri RN Chaudhary, JE(Civ) (GS-195230L) is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specified in Para 2 above, or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, or the orders/directions issued in pursuance of the said rule, the inquiring authority may hold the inquiry against him ex-parte. 5. Attention of Shri RN Chaudhary, JE(Civ) (GS-195230L) is invited to Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, under which no Govt Servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that Shri RN Chaudhary, JE(Civ) (GS-195230L) is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 6. The receipt of the Memorandum may be acknowledged. Page No.# 13/30 (Mangal Soren) Under Secretary to the Government of India” In so far as the writ petitioners in W.P(C) No. 5792/2025 is concerned, the only memorandum of charges pertaining to Shri Aman Kumar is available and the same is extracted below: ”Dated 02 August, 2024 MEMORANDUM The President proposes to hold an inquiry against Shri Aman Kumar, AEE (Civ) (GO-4435A) of 343 SPL/55 RCC/762 BRTF (P) Vijayak, C/O 56 APO (presently posted at HQ. 105 RCC/HQ 761 BRTF(P) Brahmank C/O 99 APO) under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of change (Annexure-l). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-ll). A list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III and IV). A copy of CVC's advice, contained in their OM No. 2024/DEF/BRO/VIG_Case/4/35650 dated 29.07.2024 is also enclosed. 2. Shri Aman Kumar, AEE (Civ) (GO-4435A) is directed to submit within 15 days of the receipt of this Memorandum a written statement of his defence and also to State whether he desires to be heard in person. 3. He is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charge as are not admitted. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. 4. Shri Aman Kumar, AEE (Civ) (GO-4435A) is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specified in Para 2 above, or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, or the orders/directions issued in pursuance of the said rule, the inquiring authority may hold the inquiry against him ex-parte. 5. Attention of Shri Aman Kumar, AEE (Civ) (GO-4435A) is invited to Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, under which no Govt Servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that Shri Aman Kumar, AEE (Civ) (GO-4435A) is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule Page No.# 14/30 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 6. The receipt of the Memorandum may be acknowledged. (Mangal Soren) Under Secretary to the Government of India” 9. The petitioners are the member of the GREF /the Border Road Organization. This organization, although is essentially under the control of the Army and in respect of the works to be carried out as is entrusted from time to time regarding construction of border roads, it is a part of the BRO under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The petitioners are not regular army personnel. However, where the works entrusted to the GREF/BRO are required to be carried out under the supervision of the army authorities, to that extent, the army authorities are at such times the controlling authority in respect of all these personnel, including the writ petitioners. In this respect, reference to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in R Viswan and Ors. Vs. Union of India and ors, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 401, may be referred to in this judgment. The relevant portions of the Judgment are extracted below: 5. So far as the personnel of GREF are concerned, they are partly drawn from the Army and partly by direct recruitment. Army personnel are posted in GREF according to a deliberate and carefully planned manning policy evolved with a view to ensuring the special character of GREF as a force intended to support the Army in its operational requirements. The posting of Army personnel in GREF units is in fact regarded as normal regimental posting and does not entitle the Army personnel so posted to any deputation or other allowance and it is equated with similar posting in the Army for the purpose of promotion, career planning etc. The tenure of Army personnel posted in GREF units is treated as normal Regimental Duty and such Army personnel continue to be subject to the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 whilst in GREF. But quite apart from the Army personnel who form an important segment of GREF, even the directly recruited personnel who do not come from the Army are subjected to strict Army discipline having regard to the special character of GREF and the highly important role it is called upon to play in support of the Army in its operational requirements. Since the capacity and efficiency of GREF units in the event of outbreak of hostilities depends on their all time capacity and efficiency, they are subjected to rigorous discipline even during peace time, because it Page No.# 15/30 is elementary that they cannot be expected suddenly to rise to the occasion and provide necessary support to the Army during military operations unless they are properly disciplined and in fit condition at all times so as to be prepared for any eventuality. The Government of India has in exercise of the power conferred upon it by sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 4 of Army Act, 1950 issued a notification bearing No. SRO 329 dated September 23, 1960 applying to GREF all the provisions of that Act with the exception of those shown in Schedule A, subject to the modifications set forth in Schedule B and directing that the officers mentioned in the first column of Schedule C shall exercise or perform, in respect of members of the said Force under their command, the jurisdiction, powers and duties incident to the operation of that Act specified in the second column of Schedule C. This Notification makes various provisions of Army Act, 1950 applicable to GREF and amongst them is Section 21 which provides: “21. Subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force relating to the regular Army or to any branch thereof, the Central Government may, by notification, make rules restricting to such extent and in such manner as may be necessary the right of any person subject to this Act— (a) to be a member of, or to be associated in any way with, any trade union or labour union, or any class of trade or labour unions or any society, institution or association, or any class of societies, institutions or associations; (b) to attend or address any meeting or to take part in any demonstration organised by any body of persons for any political or other purposes; (c) to communicate with the press or to publish or cause to be published any book, letter or other document.” The other sections which are made applicable deal with special privileges, offences, punishments, penal deductions, arrest and proceed ings before trial, courts-martial and other incidental matters. These sections which are made applicable are primarily intended to impose strict discipline on the members of GREF — the same kind of discipline which is required to be observed by the regular Army personnel. The Government of India has also in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 21, sub- section (4) of Section 102 and Section 191 of the Army Act, 1950 issued another notification bearing No. SRO 330 on the same day, namely, September 23, 1960, directing that the Army Rules, 1954 as amended from time to time shall, with the exception of Rules 7 to 18, 168, 172 to 176, 190 and 191, be deemed to be Rules made under the Army Act, 1950 as applied to GREF. Rules 19, 20 and 21 of the Army Rules, 1954 are material for the purpose of the present writ petitions and they provide inter alia as follows: “19. Unauthorised organisations.—No person subject to the Act shall, without the express sanction of the Central Government— (i) take official cognisance of, or assist or take any active part in, any society, institution or organisation, not recognised as part of the Armed Forces of the Union; unless it be of a recreational or religious nature in which case prior sanction of the superior officer shall be obtained; (ii) be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any trade union or labour union, or any class of trade or labour unions. Page No.# 16/30 20. Political and non-military activities.—(1) No person subject to the Act shall attend, address, or take part in, any meeting or demonstration held for a party or any political purposes, or belong to or join or subscribe in the aid of, any political association or movement. (2) No person subject to the Act shall issue an address to electors or in any other manner publicly announce himself or allow himself to be publicly announced as a candidate or as a prospective candidate for election to Parliament, the legislature of a State, or a local authority, or any other public body or act as a member of a candidate's election committee, or in any way actively promote or prosecute a candidate's interests. 21. Communications to the Press, Lectures, etc.—No person subject to the Act shall— (i) publish in any form whatever or communicate directly or indirectly to the Press any matter in relation to a political question or on a service subject or containing any service information, or publish or cause to be published any book or letter or article or other document on such question or matter or containing such information without the prior sanction of the Central Government, or any officer specified by the Central Government in this behalf; or (ii) deliver a lecture or wireless address, on a matter relating to a political question or on a service subject or containing any information or views on any service subject without the prior sanction of the Central Government or any officer specified by the Central Government in this behalf. * * *” The Rules obviously owe their genesis to Section 21 and they impose restrictions on the fundamental rights of members of GREF. Since the Army Act, 1950 and Army Rules, 1954 are made applicable by virtue of SROs Nos. 329 and 330 dated September 23, 1960, GREF personnel when recruited, are required to accept certain terms and conditions of appointment which include inter alia the following: “5. (iv) You will be governed by the provisions of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, as amended from time to time. Notwithstanding the above, you will be further subject to certain provisions of the Army Act, 1950, and Rules made thereunder, as laid down in SROs 329 and 330 of 1960, for purposes of discipline. It will be open to the appropriate disciplinary authority under the Army Act, 1950 to proceed under its provisions wherever it considers it expedient or necessary to do so. 5. (v) You will be required to serve anywhere in India or outside India and when so called upon by the Government or the appointing authority or your superior officer, you shall proceed on field service. 5. (vi) You shall, if required, be liable to serve in any Defence Service or post connected with the defence of India. * * * 5. (xi) On your appointment, you will be required to wear the prescribed uniform while on duty, abide by such rules and instructions issued by your superior authority regarding discipline, turnout, undergo such training and take such departmental test as the Government may prescribe.” Page No.# 17/30 The result is that the directly recruited GREF personnel are governed by the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time but for purposes of discipline, they are subject to certain provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 as laid down in SROs Nos. 329 and 330 dated September 23, 1960. …. 9. The history, composition, administration, organisation and role of GREF which we have described above while narrating the facts clearly show that GREF is an integral part of the Armed Forces. It is undoubtedly a departmental construction agency as contended on behalf of the petitioners but it is distinct from other construction agencies such as Central Public Works Department etc. in that it is a Force intended primarily to support the Army in its operational requirement. It is significant to note that the Border Roads organisation, which is in overall control of GREF was originally created as part of Army Headquarters and it was only later, for reasons of high policy, that it was separated from Army Headquarters and placed under the Border Roads Development Board. Though the budget of the Border Roads Organisation forms part of the budget of Ministry of Shipping and Transport, the financial control is vested in the Ministry of Finance (Defence). The entire infrastructure of GREF is modelled on the pattern of the Army and it is organised into units and sub-units with command and control system similar to that in the Army. The personnel of GREF right from Class IV to Class I have to be in uniform with distinctive badges of rank and they have a rank structure equivalent to that of the Army. GREF is primarily intended to carry out defence and other works projected by the General Staff, Army Headquarters and it is only where spare capacity is available that GREF undertakes works of other ministries or departments on agency basis and there also, preference is given to strategic and other roads in sensitive areas. The funds which are provided to the Border Roads Organisation are meant exclusively for carrying out the works entrusted by the General Staff, Army Headquarters and so far as the works carried out for other ministries or departments on agency basis are concerned, the funds of the Border Roads Organisation are not permitted to be used for carrying out those works and they are paid for by the respective ministries or departments and where applicable, agency charges for executing the works are also collected. The statistics given in the earlier part of the judgment show that the major portion of the work executed by GREF units consists of tasks entrusted by the General Staff, Army Headquarters and only a small percentage of the work is being done on behalf of other ministries or departments. GREF units carry out essentially those tasks which are otherwise carried out by Army Engineering Regiments and they provide engineering support to the Army both during peace time as also during hostilities. It was found necessary as a result of a major review carried out by Army Headquarters after 1971 that a minimum of 17 Border Roads Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies would be permanently required for providing engineering support to the Army and accordingly 17 Border Roads Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies have been made permanent and their composition has been reorganised in accordance with the recommendations of the Army Headquarters. These 17 Border Roads Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies are being maintained as essential units of GREF for meeting the operational requirements Page No.# 18/30 of the Army, even if sufficient work is not available for them at any given point of time. The operational planning of the Army is in fact based on availability of these 17 Border Roads Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies and during operations, they have to carry out tasks which would otherwise have been done by equal number of Army Engineering Regiments. It may be pointed out that these 17 Border Roads Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies have replaced corresponding number of Army Engineering Regiments and Pioneer Companies in the Army. The tasks required to be carried out by the Border Roads Task Forces have already been described in some detail in the opening part of the judgment while narrating the facts and we need not repeat the same over again. Suffice it to state that these tasks are required to be carried out by the Border Roads Task Forces during operations with a view to providing engineering support to the Army in its operational plans. The Border Roads Task Forces have to perform these tasks and provide engineering support to the Army not only up to the border but even beyond up to the extent of advance into enemy territories. Even in peace time, the Border Roads Task Forces have to undertake works projected by General Staff, Army Headquarters to meet their operational requirements and these works include construction and maintenance of roads, operational tracks, ditch-cum- bund (water obstacles on the border), field fortifications like bunkers, fire trenches and pill boxes, helipads and airfields. It is also significant to note that the Border Roads Task Forces and Pioneer Companies attached to them are included in the Order of Battle of the Army which implies that support of these units to the Army is guaranteed and can be requisitioned at any time. The Border Roads Task Forces are also sub- allotted to lower Army formations and they appear on the Order of Battle of these formations. GREF units consisting of these Border Roads Task Forces and Pioneer Companies are placed under the direct control of the Army during emergencies when the entire control of this Force is entrusted to the Chief of the Army Staff. Even during peace time, the Chief of the Army Staff exercises control over the discipline of the members of GREF units through the applicability of the provisions of the Army Act, 1950. The Director General, Border Roads who is in overall control of GREF units is always an Army officer of the rank of Major General and his confidential reports are written by the Chief of the Army Staff. The signal communication of GREF is also integrated with the Army communication set up not only during operations but also in normal peace time. It is also a factor of vital significance which emphasises the special character of GREF as a force intended to provide support to the Army in its operational plans and requirements that Army personnel are posted in GREF units according to a carefully planned manning policy so that GREF units can in times of war or hostilities be able to provide effective support to the Army. The tenure of office of Army personnel in GREF units is regarded as normal regimental duty and is equated with similar appointments in the Army for the purpose of promotion, career planning etc. Even the directly recruited personnel of GREF are given training at the GREF Centre before they are posted and the training given is in three military disciplines which we have described in detail in the opening part of the judgment. The training includes not only drill, marching and saluting but also combat training including physical training such as standing exercises, beam exercises, rope work, route marches etc. and combat engineering training including field engineering, handling of service explosives, camouflage, combat equipment, bridging, field fortifications, wire obstacles etc. Page No.# 19/30 Moreover, the directly recruited personnel are taken up only after they voluntarily accept the terms and conditions of employment which include inter alia Conditions 5(iv), 5(v), 5(vi) and 5(xi) which have been reproduced in full while narrating the facts. These conditions make it clear that the directly recruited personnel may be required to serve anywhere in India and outside India and when directed, they would have to proceed on field service and if required, they would also be liable to serve in any Defence Service or post connected with the defence of India. It is also stipulated in these conditions that on their appointment, the directly recruited personnel would have to wear the prescribed uniform while on duty and that they would be subject to the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 as laid down in SROs Nos. 329 and 330 for purposes of discipline. It is abundantly clear from these facts and circumstances that GREF is an integral part of the Armed Forces and the members of GREF can legitimately be said to be members of the Armed Forces within the meaning of Article 33. 10. In Mohammed Ansari v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2017) 3 SCC 740, the Apex Court again held that the GREF/BRO has dual disciplinary authority, namely the authority as prescribed under the Army Act, as also under the CCS/CCA rules. 11. The perusal of these judgments clearly lay down the law that the GREF/BRO is a unique organization which although is under the Ministry of Defence and comprises of civilians, when they are entrusted with the work for construction of the border roads, the same are to be done under the supervision of the Army and to that extent, the Army authorities are also the disciplinary authority in the event any disciplinary action is required to be initiated in respect of GREF/BRO personnel who are entrusted the works. The procedure mandated under Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954, no doubt, clearly mandates an opportunity to be granted to an officer whose military reputation is at stake or when his character is questioned. The judgments pressed into service by the petitioners, namely Sanjay Jethi (Supra) is essentially in respect of army personnel against whom the court-martial proceedings were initiated on the basis of Court of Inquiry Proceedings and in such facts and circumstances of the case, it was held that initiation of court of enquiry without adhering to the Page No.# 20/30 procedure prescribed under Rule 180 of the Army Act was held to be arbitrary. 12. However, in the present proceedings, there is no dispute that the petitioners were not regular members of the armed forces or the army. No doubt the army authorities are also the controlling authorities insofar as BRO and GREF is concerned, however, in the facts of the present proceedings, the Court of enquiry merely recommended initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioners. There was no recommendation for court-martial proceedings against the writ petitioners as per the procedure prescribed under the Army Act read with the rules. Such proceedings perhaps were not initiated as the petitioners were civilian personnel and not regular army personnel. The Court of Inquiry therefore recommended departmental proceedings to be initiated against the petitioners under CCS(CCA) Rules. 13. Coming to the Judgments relied upon by the writ petitioners in Maharana Pratap Singh (Supra) which has been pressed into service in support of the contention that the charges framed against the petitioners were vague and lacking in material particulars, the Apex Court in this said Judgment was considering the proceedings initiated against the appellant therein and the punishment of dismissal imposed. Four issues were determined by the Apex Court in the said Judgment. In so far as issue No. 1 is concerned, upon examining the materials before the Apex Court and in the light of the departmental file which was called for by the Apex Court not being placed inspite of opportunities granted by the respondents, the apex Court take adverse inference and concluded that due process was not followed in dismissing the appellant therein from service rendering the dismissal unjustified. Page No.# 21/30 In so far as the issue No. 2 is concerned, the Apex Court held that while an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings. It was held that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context and in the facts of that case the disciplinary proceedings were considered to be unjust, unfair, and oppressive and therefore interfered with. In so far as the issue No. 3 is concerned, the Apex Court on the basis of materials available on record concluded that the disciplinary proceedings have not been conducted against the appellant in tune with the principles of fairness as well as natural justice which severely prejudiced his defence. The impugned order therefore is unsustainable. In so far as issued No. 4 was also answered in favour of the appellant therein interfering with the dismissal order, the disciplinary proceedings and further imposing a lumsum compensation of Rs. 30 Lakhs to the appellant therein. 14. In Sawal Singh (supra) which was also pressed into service by the petitioners in support of his contention that charges in the charge memo were vague and indefinite. The apex Court held that the charges were in the present case vague and it was difficult to meet the charges fairly by any accused. Evidence adduced was perfunctory and did not at all bring home the guilt of the accused. The absence of challenge before the enquiry officer or before the High Court, that the charges were vague would not by itself exonerate the department from bringing home the charges. Having regard to the consequences of the offences with which the delinquent officer was charged, Page No.# 22/30 the nature of charge, the absence of opportunity for cross-examination and the conflicting nature of evidence, it must be held that the report of the enquiry officer finding the delinquent-appellant guilty should not have been sustained and the government should not have acted upon it. The Apex Court also held that charges involving consequences of termination of service must be specific, though a departmental enquiry is not like a criminal trial. There is no such rule that an offence is not established unless it is proved beyond doubt. But a departmental enquiry entailing consequences like loss of job which now-a-days means loss of livelihood, there must be fair play in action, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences against an employee, there must be investigations to the charges consistent with the requirement of the situation in accordance with the principles of natural justice in so far as these are applicable in a particular situation. The application of those principles of natural justice must always be in conformity with the scheme of the Act and the subject matter of the case. It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules as to which principle of natural justice is to be applied. There is no such thing as technical natural justice. The requirements of natural justice depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so on. Concept of fair play in action which is the basis of natural justice must depend upon the particular lis between the parties. Beyond all rules and procedures that is the sine qua non. 15. In. V.K. Khanna (Supra), it was held that fairness in action depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there is no strait jacket formula there for. Mere apprehension is not enough. There must be real danger of bias. The Apex Court held that malafides must be proved by definite evidence. Page No.# 23/30 Actions which are not otherwise bonafide held would not ipso facto amount to be mala fide. 16. In Roop Singh Negi (Supra) in respect of the departmental enquiries, it was held that documentary evidence are required to be proved, mere production of these documents has been held to be not enough. The contents of the documentary evidence has to be proved by examining the witnesses. 17. In Naresh Kumar Upadhyay(Supra), the Co-ordinate Bench observed that the Court of Enquiry proceedings were initiated against the delinquent employee and the findings recorded were never made known to the petitioner therein and although the respondent No. 2 therein was not the disciplinary authority but only the appellate authority, the order of penalty was issued by the said respondent No. 2 therein without referring to any specific finding arrived at by the Court of Enquiry as regards the involvement of the petitioner in misappropriation of Govt. store. Under these circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench interfered with this impugned order and the memo of charges. 18. These Judgments have been pressed into service by the petitioners in support of his contentions that there is a real likelihood of bias against the petitioners and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings ought not to be permitted to be carried on in its present form and therefore, the same ought to be interfered with and set aside. It is also pressed into service in support of his contention that the procedure prescribed under the Army Rules, 1954 under Rule 180 regarding Court of Enquiry was never followed in respect of the writ petitioners. 19. In A. Venkata Naidu(Supra) has also been pressed into service by the writ petitioners in support of his contentions that the memo of charges issued by the Page No.# 24/30 respondents should not be vague but should be specific and if the charges are not specific there can be no finding of guilt fixed on that basis. 20. The premise in which the challenge made to the departmental proceedings initiated against the writ petitioners are essentially on the ground that the Court of Enquiry being instituted against the petitioners recommended the departmental proceedings was conducted in complete violation of Rule 180 of the Army Act, 1954. Pressing the Judgment of Sanjay Jethi (Supra), it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that when Court of Enquiry is conducted and if it raises any question of the military reputation of facts or custom is concerned then every opportunity must be afforded to such an officer. Unlike the facts and circumstances before the Co-ordinate Bench as have been found in Naresh Kumar Upadhyay (Supra) which is pressed into service by the writ petitioner, the respondent authority in the present proceedings did not proceed to impose any penalty on the writ petitioners or had sought to recover any amount from the writ petitioners on the ground of causing loss to the exchequer, merely on the findings of the Court of Inquiry recommendations. On the contrary the Court of Inquiry finding merely recommended initiation of departmental proceedings under CCS(CCA) Rules against the present petitioners. It is in pursuance to such recommendation that the departmental proceedings are initiated against the writ petitioners and the show cause notices have been issued to which the petitioners have also filed their responses. There is no finding which affects the military reputation of the writ petitioners at this stage. The departmental proceedings are yet to be concluded and no finding at this stage is arrived at by the respondent authorities. 21. Therefore, the bias and the prejudice which the writ petitioners project that they will suffer in the event the proceedings are permitted to be continued, Page No.# 25/30 are not made out in the facts and circumstances of those cases. As have been held in the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in V.K. Khanna (Supra) that the test of bias is as to determine whether there is a mere apprehension of bias or is there a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion must be drawn therefrom. In the facts pleaded before this Court, although apprehension is expressed by the writ petitioners of bias, however, on the facts pleaded and the materials available before this Court no real danger of bias appears to the Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case as the matter is still at the initial stage of the departmental enquiry. As on date, there is no finding even a preliminary finding by the respondent authority against the writ petitioners in respect of the charges leveled against the writ petitioners. There are no materials placed before the Court to suggest that the proceedings were carried on in contravention of the procedure prescribed under CCS(CCA) Rules and/or that the petitioners were not given any opportunity to examine the documents or the witnesses relied upon by the respondent authorities. By order dated 20.11.2024 passed in W.P(C) No. 4861/2024 by this Court, further proceedings in the matter has been stayed as on date and the said interim order still subsists. A perusal of the show cause notices issued to the petitioners prima facie do not appear to the Court that the charges are vague and not distinct and thereby the same would pre-empt the petitioners from filing any effective reply. 22. Furthermore at the stage of initiation of departmental proceedings where memo of charges have been issued and where the reply has also been filed by the Petitioners, no final order has been passed by the disciplinary authority under the CCS(CCA) Rules, at this stage, whether any legal right of the petitioners are affected will have to be examined. Page No.# 26/30 23. In this context, reference to the judgment of the Apex Court laid down in Union of India And Anr. vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28. The Apex Court held as under: 13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467] , Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore [(2001) 10 SCC 639] , State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 24. Again in Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565, the Apex Court held as under: 11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra [(2010) 13 SCC 311 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 380] (SCC pp. 315-16, para 10) this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v. Upendra Singh [(1994) 3 Page No.# 27/30 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 768 : (1994) 27 ATC 200] .) 12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings. 13. The instant case requires to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. 25. These judgments have clearly laid down that at this stage of initiation of a memo of charges, no legal right of the petitioners are violated as no conclusions have been reached by the authorities and the matter is still under consideration by the authorities and the departmental proceedings are concluded by issuance of any order(s) by the disciplinary authority either by imposing any punishment, major or minor, on the delinquent employee, or dropping the charges. 26. As discussed above, in view of the interim orders issued by this court the respondents have not proceeded with the departmental proceedings, and no final decision has yet been issued. 27. Coming to the contention of the writ petitioners that there was undue delay in initiation of the departmental proceedings, and thereby petitioners are highly prejudiced also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the court of enquiry was held in the year 2020 and thereafter, on it’s recommendation, the departmental proceedings were initiated. There is no universal rule to determine Page No.# 28/30 the extent of delay in initiating departmental proceedings and the prejudice caused to such delinquent employees. No doubt, any departmental proceedings are to be initiated at the earliest and also concluded, without undue delay. 28. The contention of the petitioners that the initiation of departmental proceedings on recommendation by the Court of enquiry was biased against the petitioners in the absence of any opportunity being granted to the petitioners to be present during the Court of Enquiry and/or to examine the documents and witnesses thereby as per the procedure prescribed in 180 of the Rule, cannot be accepted in view of the discussion above that notwithstanding the Court of enquiry recommendation, no proceedings under the Army Act and Rules was initiated against the writ petitioners. Rather Court of Inquiry recommendation was only towards initiation of departmental proceedings under the CCS(CCA) Rules and in pursuance to which the memo of charges have been issued to which the petitioners had already submitted their written statements. Needless to say that the petitioners will have to be afforded all opportunity to examine all documents and witnesses relied upon by the department in support of the charges and the allegations against the writ petitioners Therefore, the Court does not find any bias or arbitrariness in the actions of the respondent authorities in their recommendation of the court of enquiry for initiation of departmental proceedings and on the facts pleaded. 29. In the facts of the present case, the incident(s) on the basis of which the charges are leveled against the petitioners pertains to the year 2020, and which was in the middle of the COVID period. The Court of enquiry finally recommended the proceedings against the petitoners in April 2023, and the memo of charges have been issued in the year on 2nd August 2024. Therefore, on these facts, it cannot be said that there was undue delay in initiating the Page No.# 29/30 departmental proceedings against the writ petitioners and thereby causing serious prejudice. Therefore, this argument by the writ petitioners therefore also stands rejected. 30. The contentions of the petitioners is concerned that the charges in the memo of charges are vague and therefore no proper proceedings can be conducted must also fail in view of the fact that the petitioners have also already responded to the memo charges by filing the written statements and the Copy of the written statements filed by the petitioners are not enclosed to the writ petitions nor any clear averment to that extent is found in the pleadings filed by the writ petitioners. It is open to the petitioners to raise such grounds before the departmental authorities notwithstanding that in the present proceedings, the petitioners have not been able to project vis-à-vis the charges levelled as to how these charges are vague and that the same could not/cannot be replied to and/or as a consequences thereof the petitioners could not offer their right of defence appropriately in response to the charges levelled. Under such circumstances, the contention of the writ petitioners that the charges are vague must also necessarily fail, and the same is therefore rejected. 31. The other claims of the writ petitioners regarding grant of non-functional upgradation with effect from the date when his juniors were granted, and also vis-à-vis the claim of MACP, these claims are available to the writ petitioners to be urged before the authorities subject to the same being permissible during the pendency of any departmental proceedings which have been initiated. 32. In view of the discussions above, this court does not find any merit in the petitions seeking indulgence of this court to interfere with the departmental proceedings and to issue consequential orders. In view of the discussions above, it is not required to discuss the case laws relied upon by the Page No.# 30/30 respondents. 33. Therefore, the claims made before this court by the petitioners fails and the writ petitions being devoid of any merit, the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Interim orders, if any, stands vacated. Pending I.As if any are also dismissed in view of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant