Union of India through the General Manager & Ors. Vs Sh. Gurdeep Singh

1. The respondent retired from the post of Depot Maintenance Supervisor in the Railways on 31 October 2015. Prior thereto, he was visited with a charge sheet on 14 May 2013. Inquiry proceedings, as a sequel thereto, culminated into an order passed against the respondent by the Deputy Chief Material Manager on 25 June 2015, by which he was imposed a penalty of reduction in pay by two stages with cumulative effect till retirement along with recovery of ₹ 6,16,190/-. The respondent preferred appeals against the said order on 5 August 2015 and 26 August 2015, which were dismissed by the Chief Material Manager by order dated 1 August 2016.

¶13

Signature Not Ver ified

¶14

W.P.(C) 3538/2021 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2025 19:43:29

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

2. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred OA 3407/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal¹ .

¶17

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent contended that the Chief Materials Manager was not competent to decide the appeal as, in the interregnum, the respondent had retired on 31 October 2015, and the only competent authority who could take action against him was the President of India.

¶18

4. Without examining the correctness of the said submission in law, the Tribunal has proceeded, by order dated 2 January 2019, to quash the Appellate Order dated 1 August 2016 and directed the petitioners to pass a fresh order on the respondents’ appeal.

¶19

5. The Railways preferred a Review Application with MA 3258/2019 for condonation of delay in filing the review application. By order dated 7 October 2019, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed MA 3258/2019 along with the review application preferred therewith.

¶20

6. Aggrieved thereby, the Railways have preferred the present writ petition before this Court.

¶21

7. We have heard Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Railways and Mr. Chakravorty, learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶22

1 “the Tribunal” , hereinafter

¶23

Signature Not Ver ified

¶24

W.P.(C) 3538/2021 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2025 19:43:29

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

8. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has materially erred in passing the order dated 2 January 2019. The order of punishment against the respondent was passed before he retired from service. As such, the contention that the President alone could have passed the penalty order was fundamentally misconceived. Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules 1972 comes into play either where disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the employee after he retires or were initiated prior thereto but, culminated in an order of penalty after the employee retires. In either such case, the President alone can pass the order of either withholding or withdrawing pension.

¶27

9. In this case, the penalty order was passed while the respondent was still in service. As such, the learned Tribunal erred in accepting the respondent’s contention that the President alone could have passed the penalty, or the appellate order.

¶28

10. The impugned order dated 2 January 2019, passed by the Tribunal as well as the subsequent order dated 7 October 2019, dismissing the review application are therefore quashed and set aside.

¶29

11. At this juncture, Mr. Chakravorty points out that he has preferred a Revision Application against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, which is presently pending before the Revisionary Authority in the Railways, which stands dismissed.

¶30

12. Mr. Chakravorty submits that he would be seeking his remedies against the said order. Reserving leave and liberty to do so in

¶31

Signature Not Ver ified

¶32

W.P.(C) 3538/2021 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2025 19:43:29

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of, by setting aside the impugned order dated 2 January 2019 in OA 3407/2016 passed by the Tribunal and impugned order dated 7 October 2019 in MA 3258/2019 in R.A. Application in O.A. 3407/2016.

¶35

13. The petition is allowed accordingly. No orders as to costs.

¶36

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶37

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

¶38

MARCH 11, 2025/ yg Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶39

Signature Not Ver ified W.P.(C) 3538/2021 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Da te:1 2.03.2025 19:43:29

¶40

Page 4 of 4

Union of India through the General Manager & Ors. v. Sh. Gurdeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through the General Manager & Ors. v. Sh. Gurdeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Mittal as Legal Heir of the Deceased Devender Mittal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3), Delhi & Anr.

Pushpa Rani Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Krishna Devi Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Nimit Builders Private Limited (as Successor in the Interest of Jk Jeet Clothes Private Limited and Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. Vs Competition Commission of India

Vashim Ahmad Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Savita Taneja Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Rajender Singh Advocate Vs the Chairperson Election Committee & Ors.

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs Geetanjali Mehta

Belvedere Resources Dmcc Vs Ocl Iron and Steel Ltd. & Ors.

Edcil India Ltd. Vs G L Sagar

Dr. Vinod Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Garg Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Dr. Surendra Kumar Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi