Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi OA No. 3474/2017 This the 13^th day of March, 2026 Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)

Satish Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Raj Krishan, Aged-68 Yrs.

R/o 29-B, Risal Vihar, Kanganheri Road, Chhawla, New Delhi-71 ..Applicant (By Advocates: Mr. Anoop Kumar with Mr. M K Gaur)

Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary M/o HRD Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.

2. The UPSC, through its Chairman Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi.

3. The DOP&T through its Secretary North Block, New Delhi.

4 The Director (Estt. B), DoPT, North Block, New Delhi Respondents ...RESPONDENTS (By Advocate: Mr. Manish Kumar)

O R D E R(Oral)

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)

This is the second round of litigation.

2. Vide this OA, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief:-

“(a) Directing the respondents to place relevant records pertaining to the present OA before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice and thereafter:

(b) Quash and setting aside the impugned orders dt. 08.03.17 (Annexure A/1) read with orders dt. 30.09.15 (Annexure A/2), order dt. 22.12.15 modifying the order dt. 17.04.12 and to compulsory retirement with 75% pension and full gratuity and the order dt. 27.09.13 (Annexure A/3) the orders dt. 17.04.12 including and order dt. 13.08.12 accordingly revision of retirement dues including pension etc with all other consequential benefits i.e. interest on arrears further allow the OA of the applicant with costs. (c) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted.”

3. In an earlier round of litigation in OA No. 462/2010, the applicant had approached the Tribunal seeking quashing and setting aside of the orders dated 30.03.2009 and 15.12.2009 whereby the penalty of removal from service had been imposed upon him and the same had been confirmed in revision. The applicant had also sought consequential benefits including salary for the intervening period, seniority, promotion and other service benefits.

4. The applicant, while working as Section Officer in the Language Coordination Cell (LCC), Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, had been placed under suspension vide order dated 24.08.2004. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and a charge sheet dated 14.11.2005 was issued containing three Articles of Charge. The charges broadly related to (i) issuance of certain letters to Universities/Institutes allegedly without authority and containing incorrect information, (ii) tampering with and causing disappearance of certain official documents including peon books and referring to a fictitious file, and (iii) failure to intimate the department regarding his election as President of a Housing Cooperative Society, in violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

5. An Inquiry Officer was appointed and the inquiry was concluded on 31.07.2007. The Inquiry Officer held the charges against the applicant to be proved. A copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the applicant and his representation was considered by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority initially proposed the penalty of compulsory retirement and referred the matter to the UPSC for advice. The UPSC, however, recommended the penalty of removal from service. Accepting the said advice, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service vide order dated 30.03.2009. The revision petition filed by the applicant was subsequently rejected vide order dated

15.12.2009.

6. The Tribunal, while examining the matter, considered the contentions raised by the applicant regarding denial of reasonable opportunity, appreciation of evidence and the scope of authority of the applicant in issuing the impugned letters. Upon consideration of the material on record, the Tr