Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 10 CAT CK 0330

Pranay Sinha vs Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 6 October 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) · Anand S Khati, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
OA No. 3896/2026

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

13 paragraphs · 765 words

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is aggrieved by communications dated 24.09.2026 and 28.09.2026, whereby he has been called upon to explain certain alleged irregularities concerning referral/medical bills pertaining to the financial year 2022–2023. It is submitted that the said communications have been issued pursuant to the proceedings being undertaken by a Committee constituted by the Headquarters.

2.

Learned Sr. counsel for the applicant, at the outset, submits that the aforesaid communications itself are vague and do not specify as to which particular bill(s), approved by the applicant at the CFA level, have allegedly been found to be irregular. He submits that the applicant has been asked to explain the alleged irregularities without being apprised of the specific bills or transactions in respect of which the explanation is sought.

3.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was required to submit his explanation by 01.10.2026. Immediately upon receipt of the aforesaid communications, the applicant approached the respondents vide his representation dated 29.09.2026, followed by a reminder dated 01.10.2026, seeking the relevant records/documents which are necessary for enabling him to furnish an effective response.

4.

Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to certain e-mails, whereby the request of the applicant for the requisite documents has been forwarded by the respondents (Hq) to the Mumbai Regional Office, since the alleged irregularities pertain to the period when the applicant was posted at the said office. Thus it is submitted that respondents insistence, for a reply to the communications, without supplying the requisite documents is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present OA.

5.

Dr. Divya Swami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset, submits that the present Original Application is premature, as no adverse or final order has been passed against the applicant. She, however, fairly admits that the request of the applicant for the supporting documents has been received and that the same has been forwarded to the Mumbai Regional Office. She has further drawn our attention to the latest e-mail placed at page 103 of the paper-book, which reads as under:-

“In continuation of the previous correspondence on the subject cited above, it is submitted that the Medical Benefit Branch has been making continuous and diligent efforts to trace and compile the records/documents sought in connection with the referral cases pertaining to FY 2022-23.

Considering the nature and volume of the records involved & sought, the Branch is undertaking a detailed search of the available files, registers and other records maintained in the Branch, including the records pertaining to the relevant period. The records are being examined and traced on an ongoing basis, and every effort is being made to identify and provide the documents relevant to the information sought.”

6.

It is therefore submitted that tracing of the documents is likely to take some time.

7.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, although the time stipulated for submitting his response expired on 01.10.2026, the respondents themselves are still in the process of collecting and supplying the documents necessary for the applicant to furnish an effective response as such time granted to him to submit his response shall be deemed to have been extended. He prays for interim protection in the meantime so that no order be passed without giving the applicant a chance to respond properly.

8.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the matter, we find that the concern expressed by the applicant cannot be said to be without substance. Though learned counsel for the respondents submits that the proceedings being undertaken are in the nature of a general inquiry and are not specifically directed against the applicant, it is nevertheless necessary that the applicant be furnished with the relevant documents/material, so as to enable him to submit an effective response

9.

In view of the above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to furnish to the applicant the relevant documents/records sought by him within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10.

Upon receipt of the said documents, the applicant shall submit his response within a further period of two weeks. The respondents shall thereafter consider the response of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the issues raised, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks thereafter, till then no order be passed.

11.

The present OA is disposed off in the aforesaid manner. No order as to costs.