Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench: Mumbai Order reserved on: 20.11.2025 Order pronounced on: 18.12.2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)

Shri Suchit Prasad, Age 43 years, Working as Sr. SSA, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, RO Raichur, Karnataka, residing at:

C/o Rohit Jha, Shree Saswat Complex, Flat No. 502, Bldg. No.

7, Global City, Virar (West), Dist. Palghar 401 404.

Email: suchitpd@rediffmail.com -Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. V.A. Nagrani)

Versus

1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, North Block, New Delhi 110 001.

2. Central Board of Trustees, Through its Chairman, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, North Block, New Delhi 110 001.

3. Central PF Commissioner &

CVO, Central Board of Trustees (EPFO), 14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066.

4. Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli Zone, Karnataka- 584 104

5. Regional PF Commissioner-I, Kandivali (East), 4^th to 7^th Floors, MTNL Telephone Exchange Bldg., Dr. B.R.A. Road, Sector 8, Charkop Market, Boraspada Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067.

6. Regional PF Commissioner-II, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 16/03, Opp. University of Agricultural Sciences, Askihal, Raichur, Karnataka 584 104.

Email: sro.raichur@epfindia.gov.in - Respondents (By Advocate Mr. Gunjan Chaubey)

ORDER

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

Challenge in this Original Application (O.A.) is to the chargesheet dated 21^st February, 2022 and the final order dated 04^th April, 2025 passed by the disciplinary authority. 2. Facts in brief are that the applicant was appointed as Social Security Assistant on 18^th November, 2010. At the time of serving chargesheet on the applicant, he was working as Senior Social Security Assistant.

3. On 21^st February, 2022, a chargesheet came to be served upon him alleging that while working during the period from 2019 to June, 2021, the applicant had failed to intimate the acquisition of immovable property i.e. one flat in Jharkhand and he was found to be transacting multiple suspicious uncounted/ unexplained financial dealings amounting to Rs. 5.90 Lakhs with one Shri Chandankumar Sinha, who indulged with the fraudulent settlement with outsiders (Annexure-A-1).

4. Accordingly, inquiry was conducted. Inquiry report was submitted. Disciplinary Authority agreed with the Inquiry Report and imposed punishment of dismissal from service (Annexure-A-4).

5. The chargesheet and the final order are challenged on the ground that the chargesheet was served and the final order was passed by an incompetent authority. The disciplinary authority while passing final order did not give any reason. Non-furnishing of reasons amounts to breach of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order needs to be interfered with. The applicant has preferred the O.A. without availing the remedy of appeal as the principle of natural justice has been blatantly violated.

6. Respondents filed their reply. They contend that the chargesheet has been issued by the competent authority and final order has also been passed by a competent authority. They contend that the applicant cannot approach the Tribunal without first availing the remedy of appeal as provided under the Rules.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

8. The only point raised by learned counsel for the applicant was that the disciplinary authority did not give any reason for reaching the conclusion and for dismissing the applicant from service. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the cases of Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Ors., 2003 (2) SCC 107, L.K. Verma vs. H.M.T. Ltd. and Another, (2006) 2 SCC 269. He also placed reliance on the case of Ms. Anupama Raut versus Union of India & Ors. in OA No.

08/2024 dated 15^th October, 2024, to which one of us (Justice M.G. Sewlikar) was a party.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has