Mukandi Lal v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 09 Dec 2025 · 2025:DHC:11099-DB

Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain

W.P.(C) 18663/2025

2025:DHC:11099-DB

administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the CAT order on removal from service, holding that respondents' compliance by deeming resignation and releasing dues was sufficient.

Full Text

W.P.(C) 18663/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.12.2025

W.P.(C) 18663/2025
MUKANDI LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Paramjeet, Adv. (through VC)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Premtosh K Mishra, CGSC

WITH

Mr.Varun Vats, SPC and
Ms.Rupali, GP and Mr.Prarabdh Tiwari, Mr.Anurag Tiwari, Mr.Shrey
Sharma, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 77557/2025 (Exemption)

JUDGMENT

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “i) That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order of CAT, order dated 12.02.2020 by the Hon'ble Justice/ Chairman of CAT. ii) Directing the respondents to provide/handover to compensate amount to the petitioner to survive and complete his basic day to day needs and also able to get good upbringing of his children.”

3. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) by way of its Impugned Order dated 12.02.2020, passed in O.A. No. 4079/2014, titled Shri Mukandi Lal v. Union of India through the General Manager & Ors., had disposed of the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein challenging his order of removal from service, with the following directions:

“14. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 26.08.2005 as affirmed in appeal and revision, and the report of the inquiry officer. It is left open to the respondents to conduct fresh inquiry in accordance with law. 15. The record discloses that the applicant has attained the age of superannuation on 30.09 on 30.09.2019. One option to the respondents can be to give a quietus, to the issue by granting the retirement benefits with suitable deductions, and the other is to continue, the, disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. In case the second option is chosen, they shall be under obligation to pay the back-wages in accordance with law. The decision in this behalf shall be taken within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that in compliance with the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal, vide Order dated 17.05.2024, the Competent Authority has accorded approval for considering the petitioner to have deemed to have resigned from service with effect from 01.11.2008 and, accordingly, the amounts due to the petitioner shall be released.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall be entitled to obtain a copy of this order from the counsel for the respondents.

6. The petitioner may avail of his legal remedies against the said order passed by the respondents.

7. For release of amounts, if any due from the respondents, the petitioner may approach the Senior DPO, DRM Office, State Entry Road, New Delhi-110055 for the said purpose.

8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J DECEMBER 9, 2025/ns/ik

Mukandi Lal v. Union of India

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation