##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11360

1 MP-698-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

&

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 698 of 2025

SUDESH KUMAR YADAV

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Akash Choudhury & Shri Devanshu Nandy - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel - Advocate for Union of India.

ORDER

Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribuna

Jabalpur dated 28.11.2024 passed in Original Application No.697/2014 whereby

the said application has been dismissed.

Facts of the case in short are as under:-

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Stenographer on

17.08.1987 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Stenographer on

29.12.1992, which was later re-designated as Personal Assistant by order dated

19.12.1994. As per the applicable recruitment and promotion rules, the petitioner

became eligible for promotion to the post of Private Secretary after completion of

eight years of service, i.e., in the year 2000. However, his case was not considered

in time and he was ultimately promoted to the post of Private Secretary only on

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: MANVENDRA

SINGH PARIHAR

Signing time: 13-02-2026

19:10:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11360

2 MP-698-2025

30.12.2010, with prospective effect and without grant of consequential service or

monetary benefits.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that during the relevant period, he was

subjected to continuous harassment by respondent No.4, against whom

representations were made, including by the petitioner’s wife, to higher

authorities. The petitioner further alleges that soon after filing an Original

Application on 29.08.2011 regarding his grievances, a charge-sheet was issued to

him with malafide intent by respondent No.4.

4. The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet and sought appointment of an

ad-hoc disciplinary authority on the ground of bias, which request was rejected. A

departmental inquiry was conducted, wherein the Inquiry Officer held the charges

to be proved. Based on the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed an

order dated 14.01.2013 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. The

appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 12.08.2014, followed by

rejection of review petitions vide order dated 08.11.2016.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative

Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 697/2014, contending inter alia that

the inquiry was vitiated due to bias, lack of evidence, denial of reasonable

opportunity, and reliance on inadmissible electronic and secondary evidence. The

Tribunal, however, dismissed the original application by the impugned order dated

28.11.2024, leading to the present writ petition.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel

for the rspondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal

failed to appreciate that respondent No.4 was holding personal animosity against

the petitioner and, on account of such grudge, initiated departmental proceedings

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: MANVENDRA

SINGH PARIHAR

Signing time: 13-02-2026

19:10:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:11360

3 MP-698-2025

by issuing a charge-sheet with malafide intent. Despite specific allegations of bias

having been raised against respondent No.4, he continued to act as the disciplinary

authority, thereby vitiating the entire inquiry. Hence, the punishment order dated

14.01.2013 is bad in law.

7. It is further contended that the Tribunal overlooked the mandatory

requirement under Rule 12(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as no action was

taken for change of disciplinary authority despite repeated representations,

resulting in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

8. Learned counsel submi