Mukhtiar Singh Sangha vs Union Of India & Ors.

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a retired Inspector of Delhi Police. He was initially appointed as a Head Constable (Ministerial) in the year 1971 and was subsequently appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the year 1981. In the natural progression of his service career, he was promoted to the post of Inspector.

It is submitted that, while the applicant was serving as an Inspector, an FIR dated 24.02.2004 was registered against him by the CBI under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant faced trial and was convicted. He challenged his conviction before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 746/2011.

Learned counsel further submits that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant on 27.04.2012. In the meantime, the applicant superannuated on attaining the age of retirement on 30.04.2012. The departmental proceedings culminated in the passing of the impugned punishment order dated 22.05.2025, whereby the penalty of 100% cut in pension and gratuity was imposed upon him. The said order is under challenge in the present Original Application.

Learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to the counter-reply, draws attention to paragraph 11 thereof, wherein it has been stated that Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 and notification issued by Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare was amended on 07.10.2022. In terms of the said amendment, a provision for appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been incorporated, under which the appeal lies to the President, who is to pass appropriate orders in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), as applicable.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, in view of the aforesaid amendment and the availability of the appellate remedy, the applicant has preferred an appeal against the impugned order before the Hon’ble President of India in January 2026. The said appeal is stated to be pending consideration.

In view of the subsequent development, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present Original Application has become premature, as the applicant has already availed himself of the appellate remedy and the appeal is pending consideration.

Learned counsel for the applicant fairly agrees that, in view of the appeal having been preferred against the impugned order, the present Original Application may be treated as premature. However, he submits that the applicant is entitled to be considered for extension of CGHS facilities in accordance with the applicable rules and on the same terms as other similarly placed retired employees, notwithstanding the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings.

In response, learned counsel for the respondents draws attention to paragraph 4.20 of the counter-reply, wherein it is stated that the submission made in the corresponding para of the application under reply, no reply is required on behalf of the replying respondents, however, anything contrary to the records is denied. The preparation of CGHS card of retiree/pensioners comes under the purview of CGHS authority as per guidelines of office memorandum No. F.No.S.11012/1/2024-EHS(Comp No. 8283407)/1/3687003/2024 GOI/Ministry of Health and Family Welfare EHS section dated 27.06.2024, in support of the respondents’ stand regarding the issue of CGHS facilities.

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the subsequent developments. Since the applicant has already preferred an appeal against the impugned punishment order and the same is stated to be pending consideration before the competent authority, we are of the view that the present Original Application is premature at this stage.

Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of as premature, with liberty to the applicant to pursue the appeal already preferred by him in accordance with law. We express no opinion on the merits of the appeal or the challenge to the impugned punishment order.

So far as the issue of CGHS facilities is concerned, the respondents are directed to facilitate the applicant in completing the requisite formalities for consideration of his eligibility for such facilities, in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions and on the same terms as may be applicable to similarly situated retired employees. For this purpose, the applicant shall approach the concerned respondent authority and furnish the requisite documents, if any, and the respondents shall consider his request in accordance with law.

It is clarified that the aforesaid directions are confined to the issue of CGHS facilities and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending appeal.

In view of the above, the present OA stand disposed of. No order as to costs.