Disposed

Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Aug 2025W.P.(C)/11805/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against CAT order dismissing a challenge to a suspension order and show-cause memorandum as premature. The court directed the competent authority to treat the petitioner's existing appeal as one also against the suspension order and pass a speaking order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Competent authority directed to consider Annexure P-4 as an appeal against the suspension order too and pass a speaking order within two weeks.

Saurabh Kumar Mallick Vs Union of India & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~51

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 07.08.2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 11805/2025 & CM APPL. 48208/2025, CM APPL. 48209/2025

¶5

SAURABH KUMAR MALLICK .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr.C.Sanal Nambiar, Ms.Chetna Singh and Mr.Neeraj Kumar Mishra, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Varun Vats, SPC for R-1. Dr.S.S. Hooda, Adv. for R-2.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶10

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

This petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.1840/2025, titled Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Union of India & Anr. , disposing of the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein as being premature and reserving liberty in the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy available to him in accordance with the rules, if so advised. 2. The petitioner had filed the above O.A. inter alia challenging

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11805/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 1.08.2025 20:14:59

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

the Suspension Order dated 03.04.2025 whereby the petitioner had been placed under suspension, as also the Memorandum dated 11.04.2025 whereby he was asked to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Impugned Suspension Order had been issued by the respondents without stating any reasons for placing the petitioner under suspension. He further submits that the allegations contained in the Impugned Memorandum dated 11.04.2025 are false. He further states that though he has filed an appeal against the Impugned Suspension Order on 05.05.2025, the same is yet to be considered by the respondents, while in the meantime, the respondents have further extended the suspension vide Order dated 30.06.2025. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice of this petition, submits that even as per Annexure P-4 that has been filed along with the present petition, the appeal has been filed only against the Impugned Memorandum dated 11.04.2025 and not against the Impugned Suspension Order dated 03.04.2025. He submits that in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, an appeal is maintainable even against an order of suspension. He submits that the petitioner has not availed of this remedy and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly refused to interfere in the O.A. He further submits that there are grave charges against the petitioner and, therefore, his suspension was justified.

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11805/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 1.08.2025 20:14:59

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

Without entering into the merits of the allegations made by the respondents against the petitioner, the fact remains that the so-called appeal, which has been annexed as Annexure P-4, though claims itself to be against the Memorandum dated 11.04.2025 and not against the Suspension Order dated 03.04.2025, at the same time, has a prayer for the suspension to be revoked.

¶21

Keeping in view the above, we direct the competent authority of the respondents to consider Annexure P-4 as an appeal of the petitioner against his Suspension Order as well, and pass a speaking order thereon within a period of two weeks from today, communicating the same to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with the law.

¶22

The petition, along with the pending applications, is disposed of in the above terms.

¶23

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶24

MADHU JAIN, J

¶25

AUGUST 7, 2025 /ns/SJ

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11805/2025 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 1.08.2025 20:14:59

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Union of India & Anr.

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

Indira Menon Vs Delhi Police Licensing Department

Lt Col Samir Kumar Singh Vs Army Group Insurance Fund and Ors.

Manisha Sejwal Vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr.

Samast Jawala Heri Gaon Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Ramesh Singh Vs the Regional Labour Commissioner Central & Anr.

Manoj Chauhan Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 & Anr.

Quattro Realcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Circle 19(1), Delhi

Sangeeta Negi Vs Bharti Public School, through Its Manager & Ors.

Manisha Sejwal Vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Anr.

Kanwar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Hitesh Khurana

Chaturbhuj Rathore Vs Union of India & Ors.

Roshan Lal Saini Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India Vs Raj Bala and Ors.

Raj Bala Vs Union of India and Ors.