Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench In RA No. 189/2025 In OA No. 959/2024 th New Delhi, this the 06 day of January, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)

Delhi Jal Board Govt. of NCT of Delhi Varunalaya Phase-II, Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005 ... Applicant Versus Ram Kishan S/o Sh. Pyare Lal R/o Village Mirpur, PO Kazrodi Distt. Hathrass, Uttar Pradesh ... Respondent O R D E R (By Circulation)

Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):

The instant Review Application (RA) has been filed by the respondents in OA No. 959/2024 under Section 22(3)(F) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, thereby seeking review of order dated 23.05.2025 passed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid OA. They have filed the RA on the following grounds:

i) That the applicant’s absence from duty without duly sanctioned leave constitutes a grave misconduct and the Tribunal while passing the order in the OA entirely ignored the enormity of this lapse on the part of the applicant ii) That the applicant failed to obtain proper sanctioned leave and the medical certificate from homeopathic practitioner was inadmissible which constitutes a material misappreciation of evidence and law on the part of the Tribunal iii) That the DJB followed the due process mandated by law before imposing the punishment and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal wrongly relied upon Office Order No. 51 dated 04.03.2021 passed by the DJB when the Office Order No. 51 itself was incomplete as some contents of the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2020 were left out inadvertently at the time of its issuance. It is further stated that the DJB amended its Office Order No. 51 and passed a Corrigendum Officer Order No. 60 dated 15.10.2025 whereby DJB, by Board Resolution had delegated disciplinary authority to the Member (Admn.) wo validly signed the impugned order in the OA. The Tribunal did not consider that Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 (read with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) expressly permits continuation of departmental proceedings commenced in service even after retirement.

iv) That the Tribunal overlooked the fact that proper procedure was followed, the internal arrangement Resolution No. 1079 dated 15.09.2020 and subsequent orders passed by the respondents were fully consistent with the CCS (CCA) Rules v) That the DJB initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant before his retirement and his retirement did not nullify the proceedings, thus, the Tribunal erred in holding that proceedings were barred due to applicant’s retirement vi) That the Tribunal’s reliance on cases like Union of India vs. Sabu Joseph of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka does not apply in the applicant’s case vii) That the applicant’s conduct strikes at the heart of public service discipline and the Tribunal’s leniency undermines essential service standards. By excusing the applicant on flimsy grounds, the Tribunal has weakened this principle which goes beyond any reasonable interpretation of law.

2. The captioned MA No. 5410/2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 145 days in filing of the present RA. In such application, it is contended by the applicant herein that after the order in the OA was passed on 23.05.2025, the mater was placed before the competent authority for consideration of further legal steps. However, due to time consuming inter departmental correspondence and administrative workload, the decision to prefer a Review Application could not be finalized in time and thus, the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional. The applicant relies on the judgment of State of Nagaland v. LipokAo, (2005) 3 SCC 752 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 to state that while considering the applications for condonation of delay filed by government departments, the courts/tribunals must adopt a liberal approach in the interest of justice. And if the delay is not condoned, th