CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH KOLKATA R.A. 350/05/2026 O.A. 350/1514/2022 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06.03.2026 Coram: Hon’ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member In the matter of :

Dr Nazrul Islam, S/O Late Abdul Aziz, residing at 579 Madurdaha, Kolkata- 700107, age about 72, by faith Islam, by profession IPS (Retd.)

Applicant ...

VS.

1. Union of India, service through the secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, 110001, 2. State of WB, service through Home Secretary, Government of WB, Nabanna, 325 Sarat Chatterjee Road, Howrah-

711102, WB

3. Union Public Service Commission, service through its secretay, UPSC Bhawan, Shahajahan Road, New Delhi-

110069.

Respondents ….

For The Applicant(s): Party in Person For The Respondent(s): None O R D E R Per: Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member

1.

The applicant in OA No. 350/1514/2022, had approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):

“a) DIRECTION do issue upon the respondent authorities to quash/set aside the impugned order [MHA, GOI order No 26011/20/2013-IPS.II dated 14-09-2018] imposing penalty of pension-cut on the moS and all the subsequent orders rejecting his applications for Revision, Review and Memorial.

(i) After Revision, MHA GOI order No 26011/20/2013-IPS.II dated 01-04-2019.

(ii) After Review, MHA GOI order No 24011/20/2013-IPS.II dated 16-09-2021.

(iii) After Memorial, MHA GOI order No 26011/20/2013-IPS.II dated 26-05-2022.

b) DIRECTION in the nature of certiorari do issue upon the respondent authorities directing them to produce and / or cause to be produced the entire records of the case and thereupon to pass necessary orders for rendering conscionable justice;

c) Cost and costs incidental hereto;

d) And / or to pass such other or further order or orders as to your Lordships may seem fit and proper.”

2.

This Tribunal after discussing the issues involved in the matter disposed of the OA by passing the following order on 12.1.2026:

“20. We have already concluded that the ex parte inquiry against the applicant resulted in denial of natural justice to the applicant. The inquiry process as well as the inquiry report dated 24.08.2016 suffer from legal infirmities on account of non-adherence to statutory provisions. Punishment Order dated 14.09.2018 is based on the inquiry report which is held to be legally unsustainable. Besides, the punishment order itself suffers from not being adequately reasoned and analytical in as much as it neither addresses each article of charge individually nor does it deal with the charge of violation of statutory rules brought to its notice by the applicant in his representations. The inquiry report dated 24.08.2016, punishment order dated 14.09.2018, revision order dated 01.04.2019, review order dated 06.10.2021 and the order dated 26.05.2022 on the memorial submitted by the applicant are therefore held to be legally unsustainable and are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to pay full pension to the applicant without resorting to any cut and refund the amount if already deducted to the applicant within a period of

90 days from the date of this order.”

3 . Para XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code defines the scope of review of the decision by the same Court as follows :-

“1. Application for review of judgment.-

(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or fo