Allowed

Nazar Ali v. M/O Defence

CAT11 Sept 2026O.A./63/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the applicant's challenge to the appellate authority's order confirming a penalty for submitting unauthorized medical bills. The court held that since no second advance was sanctioned for the disputed treatment and the amount was already recovered, the penalty was recorded without clear proof of malafide intent, warranting its setting aside.

What did the court decide?

The penalty order dated 14.08.2015/09.09.2015 was set aside; consequential relief to recover the deduction was allowed within 90 days.

Nazar Ali vs M/O Defence — Pension and Retirement Benefits | CAT (2026)

¶1

O.A.No. 200/00063/2016

¶2

¶3

Reserved

¶4

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR

¶5

(Hybrid Mode)

¶6

Original Application No.200/00063/2016

¶7

Jabalpur, this Friday, the 11^th day of September, 2026

¶8

RAJU NAML Digitally signed by RAJUL NAMDEODN: C=IN, CN=RAJUL NAMDEO, L=Jabalpur, O=Personal, ST=Madhya Pradesh, E=[email protected], postalCode=482004, serialNumber=ea8eccfd52644dcb30af620f19c18d39662134c765dec84aec2c142b41c6e609, street=3850, Shubhash Nagar Aadhartal, Andhuwa, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh India 482004, telephoneNumber=e125d5860c1f7a1e0a12bbccc5e950204860d7795912c018822fac86d32130fe, title=9136Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 14:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1 DEO

¶9

HON’BLE SHRI RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MS MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

¶10

Nazar Ali, S/o. Shri Shaukat Ali, Aged about 58 years, Fitter, High Skilled. Grey Iron Foundry, Vehicle Estate, Ranjhi, Jabalpur, R/o. H.No. 1863/1, Khermai Ward, Bhantalya, Jabalpur (MP)-482001.

¶11

-Applicant

¶12

( By Advocate –Shri Manoj Sharma)

¶13

V e r s u s

¶14

Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence Production, South Block, New Delhi-110001.

¶15

Chairman-cum-Director General, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A Shaheed S.K. Bose Marg, Kolkata-700001.

¶16

Additional Director General/Member, Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A Shaheed S.K. Bose Marg, Kolkata-700001.

¶17

General Manager, Grey Iron Foundry, Vehicle Estate, Ranjhi, Jabalpur-482001 (Μ.Ρ.)

¶18

- Respondents

¶19

( By Advocate – Shri N.K.Mishra)

¶20

Page 1 of 6

¶21

O.A.No. 200/00063/2016

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

BY MALLIKA ARYA, AM:-

¶25

The applicant is aggrieved with the order dated 14.08.2015/09.09.2015 by which the respondents have modified the

¶26

¶27

order of penalty to ‘reduction of pay by one stage in the existing pay band for a period of one year with cumulative effect’.

¶28

2. The facts of the case in brief is that the applicant was working under the category of High Skilled under respondent No. 4. The applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 09.03.2013 (Annexure A- 2) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging that the applicant had submitted an unauthorized bill of two different hospitals for the same period. The applicant replied to the said charge sheet denying charges in totality. Being dissatisfied with the reply, the respondents have initiated a departmental enquiry against the applicant. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report dated 10.02.2013/15.03.2014 (Annexure A-4). After receiving the enquiry report, the applicant submitted his representation on 22.03.2014 (Annexure A-5). However, the disciplinary authority being dissatisfied with the reply of the applicant, has passed the punishment order dated 14.06.2014 (Annexure A-6) inflicting a harsh punishment of reduction of pay by two stages with cumulative effect. The applicant being aggrieved

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

O.A.No. 200/00063/2016

¶31

¶32

with the impugned punishment order preferred an appeal dated 22.07.2014 (Annexure A-7) to respondent No.2. The respondent No. 2

¶33

¶34

has decided the appeal of the applicant vide order dated 14.08.2015 and modified the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority to reduction of pay by one stage in the existing pay band for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Hence, this O.A.

¶35

3. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that the applicant’s mother was under treatment in Jabalpur Hospital and Research Centre, Jabalpur during the period 26.04.2012 to 03.05.2012. In the same period i.e. 29.04.2012 to 30.04.2012, the applicant’s mother has undergone treatment in Janjyoti Eye Hospital. The applicant was sanctioned a medical advance of Rs. 10,000/- for treatment in Jabalpur Hospital and Research Centre (JHRC). The applicant submitted two separate medical claims in respect of treatment of his mother by two different hospitals. The applicant was issued a chargesheet under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964 vide memo dated 09.03.2013 for submitting unauthorized medical bills from two different hospitals for the same period in r/o treatment of his mother. The applicant has denied all the charges leveled against him. An enquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charges framed against the applicant. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 10.02.2014 holding that the charges leveled against the applicant stand established.

¶36

Page 3 of 6

¶37

O.A.No. 200/00063/2016

¶38

¶39

The respondents have further submitted that the Competent authority after going through the record of enquiry imposed the penalty of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect for a period of one year vide order dated 14.06.2014 (Annexure R-2).

¶40

RAJU
NAML Digitally signed by RAJUL NAMDEODN: C=IN, CN=RAJUL NAMDEO, L=Jabalpur, O=Personal, ST=Madhya Pradesh, E=[email protected], postalCode=482004, serialNumber=ea8eccfd52644dcb30af620f19c18d39662134c765dec84aec2c142b41c6e609, street=3850, Shubhash Nagar Aadhartal, Andhuwa, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh India 482004, telephoneNumber=e125d5860c1f7a1e0a12bbccc5e950204860d7795912c018822fac86d32130fe, title=9136Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 14:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
DEO

¶41

The applicant preferred an appeal against the penalty order, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure R-1). The appellate authority moderated the penalty to “penalty of reduction by one stage in the existing pay band for one year with cumulative effect.

¶42

4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶43

5. It is evident from the record that the applicant was charge sheeted for submitting un-authorized medical bills from two different hospitals for the same period for treatment of his mother. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that medical advance was sanctioned for the treatment of his mother at Jabalpur Hospital. The applicant in his reply has submitted that the sole witness Shri Laxman Pandey was examined by the inquiry officer. He has averred in the enquiry that “no advance was given to the applicant for the treatment at Janjyoti Eye Hospital. The applicant submitted two bills on two separate dates for the treatment undergone during the same period at Jabalpur Hospital and Research Centre as well as at Janjyoti Eye Hospital. Despite the fact that the treatment undergone by the applicant’s mother at Janjyoti Eye

¶44

Page 4 of 6

¶45

O.A.No. 200/00063/2016

¶46

¶47

Hospital did not have the signatures of the authorized doctor, he admitted the claim due to ignorance. Since for medical claim there can be only one bill, therefore, he joined both the bills together as the period of the treatment overlapped.”

¶48

¶49

6. We have also take note of the fact that the respondents have given a charge sheet to the applicant, for submitting two bills for the same period from two different hospitals. The applicant did not draw advance for the treatment of his mother at Janjyoti Eye Hospital. The advance which was given to the applicant for Rs. 10000/- was for treatment at Jabalpur Hospital and Research Centre. The said amount has already been recovered from the applicant as per the oral argument of the applicant’s counsel. Even if the applicant had claimed re-imbursement for two different sets of treatment for the same period and submitted two bills, the fact remains that he has incurred the said expenses. Further, it was for the claim section to have rejected the second bill if it was not as per rules. There is nothing on record from the respondents that since both the bills pertained to indoor treatment they have cross-checked the facts from the Janjyoti Eye hospital who had given the second bill for indoor treatment.

¶50

6.1 The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the charges have been proved against the applicant. We are of the considered

¶51

Page 5 of 6

¶52

O.A.No. 200/00063/2016

¶53

¶54

view that no malafide can be alleged against the applicant for having submitted two bills for re-imbursement. The arguments of the applicant’s counsel have not been controverted by the respondents in their reply or during the course of arguments.

¶55

RAJU
NAML Digitally signed by RAJUL NAMDEODN: C=IN, CN=RAJUL NAMDEO, L=Jabalpur, O=Personal, ST=Madhya Pradesh, E=[email protected], postalCode=482004, serialNumber=ea8eccfd52644dcb30af620f19c18d39662134c765dec84aec2c142b41c6e609, street=3850, Shubhash Nagar Aadhartal, Andhuwa, Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh India 482004, telephoneNumber=e125d5860c1f7a1e0a12bbccc5e950204860d7795912c018822fac86d32130fe, title=9136Reason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.11 14:01:58+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2026.1.1
DEO

¶56

7. Therefore, we set aside the penalty order dated 14.08.2015/09.09.2015 (Annexure A-1). Since the penalty has already undergone by the applicant, therefore, we allow consequential relief to him within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶57

8. Hence, the O.A. is allowed in the above terms. No costs.

¶58

(Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra) Administrative Member Judicial Member

¶59

rajul

¶60

Page 6 of 6

Nazar Ali v. M/O Defence

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazar Ali v. M/O Defence

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prajakta Prashant Wade vs Central Railway

Dilip Deorao Ukey vs Central Railway

Atul Sirjerao Thakare vs Central Ground Water Board

Prashik Anil Ramteke vs Income Tax Department

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary