Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 09 CAT CK 3397

Pramod Kumar vs Bharat Sarkar & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad · Decided on 16 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
CASE NUMBER
Diary No.2372 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 450 words

ORDER

Mr. Pramod Kumar, applicant, in person and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.

2.

At the very outset, the applicant in person submits that he has filed the present case, registered as Diary No. 2372 of 2026, seeking a direction to the respondents for deciding his representation dated 28.07.2025 in a time-bound manner and also for providing him an opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the complaint dated 17.07.2025, on the basis of which a show-cause notice dated 23.07.2025 was issued to him, was not initially supplied to him in Hindi and that he had also sought the call recording relating to the incident.

3.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, in the short counter reply, submits that a complaint dated 17.07.2025 was made by Ashwani Matews, AMM/GSD/Jhansi, against the applicant regarding alleged verbal misbehaviour, use of disrespectful language and insubordinate remarks. He submits that a show-cause notice dated 23.07.2025 was issued to the applicant and, instead of submitting his reply, the applicant sought a Hindi translated copy of the complaint as well as the call recording vide his application dated 23.07.2025, which was subsequently reminded by him on 10.06.2026. Learned counsel further submits that, considering the applicant's request for a translated copy in Hindi, the same was provided by the competent authority vide letter dated 12.06.2026. As regards the call recording, it was informed that the same was about one year old and, therefore, could not be made available. He further submits that the applicant's representation dated 28.07.2025, as claimed in the present case, has already been dealt with and the relevant document, including the Hindi translation of the complaint, has been supplied to the applicant. He, therefore, submits that the relief sought by the applicant has already been complied with and the present case may be dismissed as infructuous.

4.

Applicant in person further submits that the complaint dated 17.07.2025, in respect of which he had sought the Hindi translated copy, has subsequently been provided to him by the respondents vide letter dated 12.06.2026. He, therefore, submits that his grievance in this regard has been substantially addressed.

5.

In view of the fair submissions made by the applicant in person and learned counsel for the respondents, and considering that the complaint dated 17.07.2025 has subsequently been provided to the applicant along with its Hindi translation vide letter dated 12.06.2026, the grievance rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the instant case, registered as Diary No. 2372 of 2026, is dismissed as infructuous.

6.

Accordingly, the case, registered as Diary No. 2372 of 2026, stands dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

7.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.