Shri Suresh Kumar Rajput vs Shri Dharmendra & Ors.

Per Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

This M.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking, inter alia, initiation of perjury proceedings against the respondents in respect of the Compliance Affidavit dated 17.04.2025, filed on 21.04.2025 by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in CP No. 152/2025, as well as the counter-reply affidavits filed in OA Nos. 1309/2024, 2183/2024 and 804/2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid affidavits contain contradictory, misleading and distorted statements and that material facts and documents relating to the applicant’s medical condition, permanent disability, treatment, leave, pay and allowances and other service entitlements have either been suppressed or incorrectly represented before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the applicant is a serving Delhi Government employee who acquired permanent disability during service on account of a major brain stroke/SAH-Aneurysm and was assessed with 83% disability in 2019 and 81% upon reassessment in 2022. According to learned counsel, the applicant has severe functional limitations and requires continuing medical treatment, medication, neuro-rehabilitation and assistance, and his disability certificates, medical examination reports, Leave Committee recommendations, treatment recommendations of GB Pant Hospital, Finance Department recommendations and other relevant records were available with and/or verified by the respondents.

Learned counsel further submits that, despite the aforesaid material being available on record, the respondents have failed to extend to the applicant the statutory protections and entitlements available under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and the connected Government instructions and notifications. It is contended that the applicant’s period of absence, pay and allowances, medical reimbursement, treatment and rehabilitation, promotion and other service benefits have been dealt with by applying general administrative norms without duly considering the special statutory protection available to a person who acquired disability during service. Learned counsel submits that the applicant’s extent and nature of disability and his requirement of reasonable accommodation and other safeguards under the RPwD Act, 2016 were also not duly considered.

It is further submitted that the respondents have suppressed or failed to disclose material official records, including the Leave Committee recommendations dated 15.12.2020, medical examination reports, treatment and medication justifications issued by GB Pant Hospital, orders and directions issued by the competent authorities, Finance Department recommendations and relevant noting sheets and departmental records. According to learned counsel, the affidavits filed by the different respondents contain mutually inconsistent stands on material issues and are contrary to documents already placed on record. Learned counsel submits that such alleged contradictory and false depositions, having been made on oath before the Tribunal, warrant consideration of initiation of appropriate perjury proceedings against the persons responsible, in accordance with law.

Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have failed to comply with the orders passed by the Tribunal and the competent authorities in relation to regularisation of the applicant’s absence, restoration of pay and allowances, medical treatment and other service benefits. It is argued that the applicant, being a person who acquired permanent disability during service, is entitled to consideration of his claims in accordance with the protective provisions of the RPwD Act, 2016, including the principles of non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation and protection of employment. Learned counsel submits that the respondents cannot, by adopting a restrictive interpretation of the general service rules, defeat the specific statutory safeguards available to persons with disabilities.

Learned counsel also submits that the alleged suppression of material facts, contradictory depositions, misrepresentation of official records and non-disclosure of relevant documents were not isolated or inadvertent omissions, but, according to the applicant, occurred repeatedly in the counter-reply affidavits and the Compliance Affidavit filed in the connected proceedings. It is therefore contended that the matter requires examination by the Tribunal and, if the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate perjury proceedings and other proceedings permissible in law may be initiated against the concerned respondents/stakeholders. Learned counsel has relied upon various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning suppression of material facts, the duty of parties to make truthful disclosure before a judicial forum, compliance with judicial orders and the consequences of misleading the Court.

Learned counsel accordingly submits that the conduct of the respondents, as alleged in the M.A., amounts to suppression and concealment of material facts, misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the record, and non-compliance with the applicable statutory provisions and judicial directions. It is therefore prayed that the Tribunal may examine the alleged false and contradictory statements made on oath and, if warranted, initiate perjury proceedings against the concerned respondents/persons responsible in accordance with law, besides imposing appropriate exemplary costs/fine and passing such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit to the M.A., stating that the application is misconceived and not maintainable in the present form, as the applicant has impleaded about 30 persons by name, though no specific allegations have been made against most of them and they were neither respondents in the original O.A. No. 1309/2024 nor concerned with the medical reimbursement claim. It is submitted that the O.A. had only five respondents and C.P. No. 152/2025 had six respondents, whereas the present M.A. has sought to implead several persons who were not parties to the original proceedings. It is further submitted that the O.A. and the C.P. already stood disposed of/closed vide orders dated 19.12.2024 and 27.05.2025, and the applicant has not sought any amendment of the memo of parties in the said proceedings. Counsel further submits that the allegations made in the M.A. relate to various incidents and occasions having no connection with the medical reimbursement claim involved in O.A. No. 1309/2024 and C.P. No. 152/2025. It is therefore contended that the impleadment of such persons, in their individual capacity, is unwarranted and the M.A. is not maintainable. On merits, the allegations have been denied as vague and misconceived, and it is submitted that the respondents filed their replies on the basis of the facts and official records available with them and did not intentionally misstate, manipulate or distort any material fact. It is accordingly prayed that the M.A. be dismissed as not maintainable.

Counsel for respondents No. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 28, 29 and 30 has filed the reply to the M.A., stating that the applicant has impleaded 30 persons by name in the present M.A., whereas the original O.A. No. 1309/2024 had only five respondents and C.P. No. 152/2025 had six respondents. It is submitted that the said O.A. and C.P. have already been disposed of/closed vide orders dated 19.12.2024 and 27.05.2025, respectively, and most of the persons impleaded in the present M.A. were neither parties to the original proceedings nor concerned with the medical reimbursement claim. It is further submitted that the incidents referred to in the M.A. are unrelated to the medical reimbursement issue involved in the O.A. and C.P., and the applicant has not sought any amendment of the memo of parties in the said proceedings. Accordingly, it is contended that the present M.A., insofar as the impleadment of such persons is concerned, is not maintainable.

Pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 12.03.2026, learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 has filed the reply, stating that the respondents have verified the relevant official records and clarified the position regarding the payments made to the applicant as well as the discrepancy in the DGEHS Card Number. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 had released care-giver charges for the period from December 2018 to March 2021 at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and had also sanctioned/released an amount of Rs.70,200/- at the rate of Rs.300/- per day towards special nurse/Ayah/attendant charges for the period from 01.05.2022 to 18.01.2023, in terms of the applicable CGHS O.M. dated 18.01.2011. It is further submitted that no reimbursement towards care-giver/special nurse/Ayah/attendant charges was made for the period from April 2021 to April 2022, in view of the clarification issued by DGEHS vide letter dated 30.06.2021.

Learned counsel further submits that an amount of Rs.58,800/-was sanctioned vide sanction order dated 12.02.2024 at the rate of Rs.300/- per day for the period from March 2023 to September 2023 towards nursing care charges, against the gross claim of Rs.3,52,800/-. It is clarified that the DGEHS Card Number mentioned as 137713 in the counter affidavit was a clerical/inadvertent error and the correct DGEHS Card Number of the applicant is 206741. It is submitted that the sanctioned amount of Rs.58,800/- could not be released for want of requisite information regarding TDS deposited in the Income Tax Department in respect of payments made to the nursing-care provider, and the subsequent claims from October 2023 onwards also could not be processed for want of requisite information/documents from the applicant.

Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid discrepancies were inadvertent and bona fide clerical mistakes, which are regretted, and there was no intention whatsoever to make any false statement before the Tribunal. It is, therefore, prayed that the explanations furnished by the respondents may kindly be taken on record, a lenient and sympathetic view may be taken, and the present M.A. may be disposed of accordingly.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and material placed on record.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn our attention to the subsequent order dated 06.07.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 8366/2026. It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court, while examining the reliefs sought therein, categorised the prayers into three broad categories, namely, the challenge to para 17(vi) of the Tribunal’s order dated 11.11.2025 in OA No. 2183/2024, the remaining substantive service-related reliefs, and the prayers seeking initiation of contempt proceedings. As regards the contempt prayers, the Hon’ble High Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to agitate the same separately by way of an appropriate contempt petition. The challenge to para 17(vi) of the Tribunal’s order was rejected, the Hon’ble High Court observing that the Tribunal had merely reserved liberty to the respondents to revisit the grant of annual increments, bonus, TA and HPCA/PCA, subject to prior notice to the applicant and disclosure of the grounds for such proposed action.

Learned counsel further submits that, in respect of the remaining substantive reliefs, the Hon’ble High Court, relying upon the judgment of the Seven-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, held that the High Court could not exercise jurisdiction as a court of first instance in matters amenable to adjudication by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Hon’ble High Court specifically held that the reliefs relating to service conditions, remuneration, allowances, promotion, pension and other service benefits constituted “service matters” falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Sections 14(1) and 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was further observed that even the challenge to the subsequent order dated 14.05.2026 constituted a fresh and independent cause of action which was required to be agitated before the Tribunal in the first instance.

Learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble High Court accordingly reserved liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal in substantive proceedings in respect of the remaining reliefs and, considering the physical incapacity of the petitioner, requested the Tribunal to deal with the matter expeditiously. It is contended that the said order demonstrates that the Tribunal remains the appropriate forum for adjudication of the substantive service-related grievances and that the allegations concerning the pleadings, official records and compliance of service-related directions may appropriately be examined by this Tribunal in accordance with law.

The principal objection raised by the respondents is that a large number of persons have been impleaded in the present M.A. in their individual capacity, although they were not parties to the original O.A. No. 1309/2024 and/or C.P. No. 152/2025 and no specific role has been attributed to them in relation to the medical reimbursement claim. It is also not disputed that the aforesaid O.A. and C.P. already stand disposed of/closed. In the absence of any amendment to the memo of parties in the said proceedings, the impleadment of persons who were not parties thereto cannot, by itself, furnish a basis for initiating proceedings against them in the present M.A.

As regards the specific issue which was directed to be clarified vide order dated 12.03.2026, we have perused the reply filed by learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 4 and 5. The respondents have explained the position regarding the payment of special nurse/Ayah/attendant charges and have clarified that the DGEHS Card Number mentioned in the earlier counter affidavit was incorrect. They have stated that the said discrepancy was an inadvertent clerical mistake and have expressly regretted the same. They have further explained that the amount of Rs.58,800/- sanctioned vide order dated 12.02.2024 could not be released for want of requisite information regarding TDS and that the subsequent claims could not be processed for want of requisite documents/information from the applicant.

Thus, the clarification furnished pursuant to the specific directions of this Tribunal explains the discrepancies noticed in the earlier pleadings and records. The respondents have accepted the inadvertent/clerical mistake and have tendered an unconditional expression of regret for the same. In these circumstances, and particularly having regard to the fact that the persons sought to be proceeded against were, in several cases, not parties to the original proceedings, we do not find sufficient basis on the material presently before us to initiate perjury proceedings against the respondents/persons arrayed in the present M.A.

Accordingly, the explanations furnished by the respondents are taken on record and the M.A., insofar as it seeks initiation of perjury proceedings on the aforesaid allegations, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.