Reserved on 30th January, 2026 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD *********

Original Application No. 625 of 2017 Allahabad this the 17^th day of February, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member-A Gopesh Ranjan, Aged about 29 years, S/o Nand Kishore Prasad Yadav, R/o

63G/6B, Stanley Road, Beli Colony, Allahabad-211002 U.P.

Applicant By Advocate: Shri N.P. Singh Vs.

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.

2. General Manager, Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi Chennai-63354 Tamilnadu.

3. Assistant Works Manager Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi Chennai, Tamilnadu.

Respondents By Advocate: Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh

O R D E R

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Shri N.P. Singh, counsel for the applicant and Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

2. By way of the instant O.A. the applicant has challenged the order dated 29.08.2015 passed by the respondent No. 2 terminating the services of applicant. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):

-

“(A) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.08.2015 (Annexure A-8 of the original application) will all consequential benefits.

(B) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondents to treat the applicant as regular employee since

30.08.2015 till the date of finalization of the original application.

(C) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate the disciplinary proceedings strictly as per rules.

(D) To issue a order or direction may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(E) To award cost to the applicant.”

3. The facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that the applicant in pursuance of advertisement No. dadp-10201/11/0899/1213 issued in the year 2011, applied for appointment on the post of Storekeeper. An admit card has been issued in favour of the applicant on 10.10.2013 and the admit card contains the photograph and thumb impression and same appears to be checked by the Invigilator. The applicant appeared in the written examination, held on 10.11.2013 and vide letter dated 22.11.2013, the applicant was declared successful in the written examination. In pursuance of result, the respondents have issued the appointment letter dated 26.03.2014 in favour of applicant. In pursuance of appointment letter, the applicant has joined the post of Storekeeper on 09.04.2014. A part-II order dated 20.04.2014 was also issued in the name of applicant. After completion of about 13 months with satisfactory work, the respondents have issued a suspension order dated 20.06.2015 against the applicant indicating that a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against the applicant. However, in pursuance of the suspension order, the respondents have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the applicant as the applicant has never been called for participating in the disciplinary proceedings and no charge sheet was ever served upon the applicant. The respondents have also not paid the subsistence allowance during the pendency of suspension. Surprisingly, without issuing show cause notice and without conducting

the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents have terminated the

services of applicant vide order dated 29.08.2015 in accordance with para

2 C and para-11 of the appointment order. The applicant claims that the

termination order is a non-speaking and cryptic order as no reason disclosed while passing the termination order and also no opportunity of hearing was provided to the applicant. It is also submitted that the respondents have failed to demonstrate any concealment or wrong declaration given by the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned action by terminating the services of vide impugned order dated 29.08.2015 is bad in law and in vi