Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 10435/2018
ATUL DIKSHIT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anunaya Mehta, Adv.
Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC, Mr. Raj Kumar Maurya, Mr. Krishna Chaitanya and Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Advs.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT
22.07.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails judgment dated 6 August 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal[1] in OA 1980/2018, whereby the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner, initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, was challenged. The Tribunal has dismissed the OA. Against the dismissal of the OA, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.
2. As no interim orders were obtained by the petitioner from this “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Court, interdicting continuance of the disciplinary proceedings, they proceeded on 9 February 2023.
3. Mr. Anunaya Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner candidly acknowledges that the order dated 9 February 2023 is separately under challenge before the Tribunal by way of OA 1357/2026.
4. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this writ petition does not survive for consideration as the charge-sheet, which was under challenge in the OA and which, therefore, also forms subject matter in this writ petition, has culminated in an order of punishment, which is separately under challenge at the instance of the petitioner before the Tribunal.
5. We, therefore, decline to exercise jurisdiction in this matter.
6. We only clarify that the Tribunal would proceed to adjudicate OA 1357/2026 uninfluenced by the impugned judgment dated 6 August 2018, under challenge in this petition.
7. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
8. It is open to the petitioner to advance all the issues raised in the present writ petition as grounds of challenge before the Tribunal in OA 1357/2026.
9. Mr. Mehta submits, at this juncture, that he would be advancing a preliminary submission before the Tribunal that the very issuance of the charge-sheet was bad in law. Inasmuch as we have kept all the grounds available in this writ petition open to be urged by the petitioner before the Tribunal, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the said grounds.
10. Mr. Mehta further submits that he would be requesting the Tribunal to take this as a preliminary ground.
11. He is at liberty to do so. It would be for the Tribunal to take a call in that regard.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
VINOD KUMAR, J JULY 22, 2026