$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 16.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 13.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 3231/2005 MITHLESH SHARMA .....Appellant Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Adv.

versus UOI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Arpan Narwa and Mr. Kushagra Malik, Advs. for R-1/UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the order dated 19.09.2003 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 937/2003.

2. Succinctly stated, the present petition is filed by the widow of late Shri Tirath Prakash, who was employed as a clerk in the Foreign Post Office, New Delhi. The husband of the Petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 26.07.1973, by Respondent No. 2, on account of a criminal investigation for corruption being initiated against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

3. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 23.05.1977, convicted the husband of the Petitioner under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 157 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned Trial Court further sentenced the husband of the Petitioner to undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and one-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1806.

4. As a consequence of the aforesaid conviction, the Petitioner’s husband was dismissed from service by Respondent No. 2, vide order dated 27.07.1977. The relevant extract is reproduced as follows:

“Whereas Shri Tirath Parkash, clerk Foreign Post, New Delhi has been convicted on a Criminal Charge under Section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under section 161 I.P.C.

And, Whereas it is considered that the conduct of the said Sh. Tirath Parkash, Clerk, Foreign Post, New Delhi, which has led to his conviction is such as to render his further retention in the Public Service undesirable.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the Powers conferred by rule 19(1) of the C.C.S. ( C.C.&A ) Rules 1965, the undersigned hereby dismisses the said Shri Tirath Parkash, Clerk, Foreign Post, New Delhi, from service with effect from 27.7.1977.”

5. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Trial Court, the Petitioner’s husband preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 1977, against his conviction before this Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Petitioner’s husband expired on 23.05.1993 and thereafter, the Petitioner was granted leave by this Court to continue the Appeal. Vide judgment dated 10.07.2001, this Court allowed the appeal filed by the Petitioner’s husband with the following observations: -

“22. For the foregoing reasons, 1 have no hesitation in holding that the present prosecution was launched without a valid sanction and, therefore, cognizance taken by the Special Judge was without jurisdiction. Further, the trial was also vitiated on account of defective recording of statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code and for the incorrect framing of charge. The appeal accordingly allowed on the legal grounds, without going into the merits of the allegations. The judgment of the learned Special Judge is set aside and the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant are quashed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

6. Thereafter, the Petitioner made a representation to Respondent No. 2, claiming that on account of the conviction of the Petitioner’s husband being set aside, he would have been entitled to be reinstated in service with consequential benefits of arrears of salary and allowances. The Petitioner claimed that since her husband had expired on 23.0