CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (Arising out of OA 260/00190/2024 disposed of on 07.01.2026)

CORAM: Order dated: 23.02.2026 THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)

THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)

VERSUS Anupama Sa mantray….…..Review Applicant Union of India & Ors……….Review Respondents For the applicant : Mr. N.R.Routray, Counsel For the respondents : NA O R D E R (Circulation)

SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (Judl.):

According to the applicant in paragraph 4.1 of the OA, while working as GDS BPM, Jagannath Prasad BO in account with Khandaparagarh SO she was placed under off duty vide memo dated 06.09.2023 from 09.09.2023. She submitted an application dated ‘NIL’ for non-receipt of put off duty TRCA to Suptd. of Post Offices, Nayagarh Division, Nayagarh, however, upon receipt of the said application on 01.01.2024 she was intimated in letter dated 16.01.2024 that she has refused to receive the put off duty memo dated 06.09.2023 for which question of releasing Ex-gratia as admissible does not arise. Thereafter, she made representation dated 27.03.2024 to Suptd. of Post Offices, Nayagarh Division, Nayagarh praying inter alia revocation of her off duty order as also release of the Ex-gratia allowance. Alleging inaction, she moved this Bench in OA No. 190/2024 praying to quash the letter dated 16.01.2024 and direct the respondents to release the Ex-gratia put off duty allowance from September, 2023. Respondents filed their counter, applicant filed rejoinder and respondents had also fitlhede raeppplyli ctaon rte jwoiansd epr lsapceecdif icuanlldye srt aotifnf g dinu tpya rwag.era.fp. h0 95 .t0h4a.t2 0“24. Regarding issuance of charge sheet and initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the same is under process and will be issued soon ”. After hearing the OA at length vide order dated 07.01.2026 this Bench dismissed the OA by observing as under: “10. In the instant case the applicant even though was put under put off duty vide order dated 06.09.2023 she refused to receive the same even when it was sent to her address by registered post and remained unauthorized. She received the same after her representation dated 27.03.2024 wherein she has stated that it was communicated at a later date and was returned back. The put off memo was communicated to her again on 05.04.2024 and accordingly the respondents vide letter dated 02.05.2024 had stated that her put off duty shall come into effect from the date of receipt of the memo dated 06.09.2023 and decided to grant her ex gratia w.e.f. 05.04.2024. The applicant has not attended the office and had remained on leave as per her own admission in her representation. Therefore, as per Rule (quote above) she is not entitled to ex-gratia for being on un-authorized leave. The respondents have granted her ex-gratia w.e.f. 05.04.2024 and revised it vide letter dated 29.11.2024.

11. As regards to the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant regarding charge memo not being issued within period of 90 days, we are not inclined to interfere on this ground since the case involves of allegation of frauds and it may take some time. Also it is well settled law that not Court/Tribunal should interfere with disciplinary proceeding at the threshold. However the respondents are directed to proceed the case in accordance with rules and complete the proceeding as early as possible.”

2. The applicant has filed this Review Application seeking to review the order dated 07.01.2026 in OA 190/2024 on the grounds a“sA u. nFdore rth: a t, admittedly there is no prayer in relation to the departmental proceeding.

B. For that, it is also not the case of Respondents, charge sheet was issued because of pendency of the Original Application, the same was delaying.

C. For that, in the rejoinder the applicant tried to substantiate that the grounds taken in placing for under put off duty is not just and proper because after lapse of 14 months no charge memorandum was issued.

D. For that, during course of hearing the