AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri Shrikant Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and with the consent of both the the parties, instant Original Application is being disposed of at the Admission stage itself.
The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant for the following reliefs:-
(i)Quash/set aside/revoke the continued operation of the Put Off Duty Order dated 22.08.2025 and direct the Respondents to restore the Applicant to duty forthwith;
(ii)In the alternative, direct restoration of the Applicant to duty and posting at a non-sensitive post/place, without prejudice to any lawful disciplinary proceeding;
(iii)Direct the Respondents to release the entire unpaid statutory ex-gratia compensation under Rule 12(3), including 25% of TRCA plus admissible DA, from the date it became due;
(iv)direct the competent authority to determine, in accordance with Rule 12(3), the appropriate compensation for the period beyond 90 days and consider enhancement/variation wherever the prolongation is not attributable to the Applicant;
(v)Direct that, if any disciplinary proceeding is proposed, the same be formally instituted and proceeded with expeditiously in accordance with law;
(vi)Direct the Respondents to supply to the Applicant the charge-sheet/charge memorandum, statement of allegations, list of documents, list of witnesses and relevant material, if any, relied upon against him;
(vii)call for the complete original record relating to the Put Off Duty Order dated 22.08.2025;
(viii)In the alternative, direct the competent departmental appellate authority to decide the Applicant's Rule 13 appeal dated 05.09.2026 and the accompanying delay condonation application by a reasoned and speaking order within a fixed time;
(ix)grant costs of the proceedings; and
(x)pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
At the very outset, the learned counsel for the applicant very fairly submits that the applicant has preferred an Appeal on 05.09.2026 along with delay condonation application before the Appellate Authority against the impugned order dated 22.08.2025, which is still pending before the Appellate Authority. Suffice, it would be if a direction is given to the concerned respondent/Appellate Authority to pass an appropriate order on the pending appeal of the applicant on merits after condoning the delay , within a stipulated time.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appeal filed by the applicant is barred by limitation.
In view of the submissions made by both the parties, without going into the merits of this case, it appears that the Appeal along with delay condoantion application in filing the appeal, preferred by the applicant is still pending before the respondent concerned, we therefore, direct the Appellate Authority/respondent concerned to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the pending appeal of the applicant, after condoning the delay, if not decided as yet, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Resultantly, instant O.A. stands disposed of.
All pending MAs in this O.A are also stand disposed off.
No order as to costs.