Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 16245

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Judicial Member, B. Anand, Administrative Member
Meenakshi Tomar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 207/2022|O.A. No. 208/2022|O.A. No. 559/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.K. Pandey, Rajan Parmar
For the Respondents: S.N. Verma, Sumedha Sharma, Annu Singh

When a statutory review or revision petition is pending before an administrative authority, the Tribunal should refrain from adjudicating the merits of the case and instead direct the authority to dispose of the pending representation in accordance with law within a clear timeframe.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Limitation - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - Disciplinary proceedings - Major penalty - Removal from service - Pending statutory review petition - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Tribunal is empowered to direct the concerned authority to decide a pending representation within a specified timeframe to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. (Paras 63, 64)

(B) Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry - Allegations of material irregularity and fabricated documentation - Existence of conflicting claims regarding the status of appellate/revisionary orders - Tribunal should not adjudicate on merits when a statutory revision petition remains pending before the competent authority. (Paras 63, 64)

Facts of the case:
Public servants were removed from service following departmental inquiries into alleged irregularities in their recruitment and the submission of invalid or fraudulent experience and category certificates. While the applicants contested these orders through disciplinary and appellate channels and further alleged that a favorable decision had been passed by the revisionary authority, the respondent authorities claimed that such orders were fabricated and non-existent. A review petition was confirmed to be pending before the revisionary authority.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed the existence of a pending revision petition and raised concerns regarding the authenticity of documents brought on record by the applicants. Given the unresolved status of the revisionary proceedings and the limitations prescribed by statute, the Court found it appropriate to dispose of the matter by directing the competent authority to decide the pending representations rather than determining the merits of the dispute.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the merits of the removal orders despite the existence of a pending revision petition and disputed documentation regarding appellate outcomes.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal holds that where a statutory review or revision petition is pending before the competent authority, the proper course of action is to direct the authority to pass a reasoned, speaking order within a definite timeline, especially when the authenticity of alleged prior orders is contested by the respondent.

Result: Original Applications disposed of with directions to the revisionary authority to pass a reasoned order within six months.

Table of Content
1. recruitment irregularities and fraudulent entry into public service. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
2. parties' contentions regarding disciplinary procedural validity and alleged appellate orders. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
3. tribunal directing disposal of pending revision petitions before the competent authority. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)

OA No. 207/2022

Ms. Meenakshi Tomar

W/o Mr. Vinay Kumar

R/o H. No. 118/32, Amar Enclave East Model Town

GT Road, Ghaziabad, UP-201009.

…Applicant

(By Advocates: Mr. S.K. Pandey and Mr. Rajan Parmar)

Versus

1. Union of India, Secretary Ayush,

Through Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga

and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy, AYUSH

Bhawan, B Block, GPO Complex,

INA, New Delhi-110023.

2. Central Council for Research in Ayurveda Sciences

Through its Director General,

Jawahar Lal Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa Evam

Homoeopathy Ansusandhan Bhawan,

61-65, Institutional Area, Opp. D Block,

Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.

3. The Director (Institute)

Ayurveda Central Research Institute

Road No.66, Punjabi Bagh (W), New Delhi-110026.

…Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. S.N. Verma)

O.A. No. 208/2022

Ms. Neetu Kumari

W/o Mr. Prashant Kumar Jha

R/o H. No. A-47, Jwaia Puri, Camp No. 4, Sunder Vihar, New Delhi – 110087.

(By Advocates: Mr. S.K. Pandey and Mr. Rajan Parmar)

Versus

1. Union of India

Secretary, Ayush

Through Ministry of Ayush, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha

and Homoeopathy, AYUSH Bhawan, B Block, GPO Complex, INA

New Delhi-110023.

2. Central Council for Research in-Ayurveda Sciences Through its

Director Generai, Jawahar Lai Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa Evam

Homoeopathy Anusandhan Bhawan, 61-65, Institutional Area, 0pp. D

Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.

3. The Director (Institute) Ayurveda Central Research Institute Road No.

66, Punjabi Bagh (W) New Delhi - 110026.

(By Advocate: Ms. Sumedha Sharma)

OA No. 559/2022

D. Kumudha Valli

W/o Mr. Selva Kumar A

R/o H.No. 259-A/A-1, Maa Shakti Apartments, Paschim Vihar, New

Delhi-110 063.

…Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Pandey and Mr. Rajan Parmar)

Versus

1. Union of India

Secretary, Ayush

Through Ministry of Ayush, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha

and Homoeopathy, AYUSH Bhawan, B Block, GPO Complex, INA

New Delhi-110023.

2. Central Council for Research in-Ayurveda Sciences Through its

Director General, Jawahar Lai Nehru Bhartiya Chikitsa Evam

Homoeopathy Anusandhan Bhawan, 61-65, Institutional Area, 0pp. D

Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.

3. The Director (Institute) Ayurveda Central Research Institute Road No.

66, Punjabi Bagh (W) New Delhi - 110026.

…Respondents

(By Advocate: Ms. Annu Singh)

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A):

The three OAs herein under are emanating from a common cause of action and, therefore, they are being treated in one judgment as hereunder.

2. By way of these OAs filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):-

“OA No. 207/2022

(a) Quash the Order dated 11.03.2019 of the respondents removing the Applicantfrom the service and the order dated NIL December, 2019, rejecting the appeal filed by the applicant.

(b) Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicantin the post of Laboratory Technician with effect from the date from which she was removed from service with full consequential benefits, with immediate effect;

OA No. 208/2022

“(a) Quash the Order dated 11.03.2019 of the respondents removing the Applicantfrom the service and the appellate order dated NIL November, 2019, rejecting the appeal filed by the applicant.

(b) Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicantin the post of Laboratory Technician with effect from the date from which she was r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 16245

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALR.N. Singh, Judicial Member, B. Anand, Administrative MemberMeenakshi Tomar – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A. No. 207/2022|O.A. No. 208/2022|O.A. No. 559/2022

When a statutory review or revision petition is pending before an administrative authority, the Tribunal should refrain from adjudicating the merits of the case and instead direct the authority to dispose of the pending representation in accordance with law within a clear timeframe.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Judicial Member, B. Anand, Administrative Member
Meenakshi Tomar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 207/2022|O.A. No. 208/2022|O.A. No. 559/2022