Shri Vinod Kumar Malik Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shri Vinod Kumar Malik Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None of the prayed reliefs granted; petition dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law before the Central Administrative Tribunal; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Maintainability of the writ petition: whether the Court should entertain a dispute arising out of disciplinary proceedings under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, being a service matter within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, when an efficacious alternative remedy exists before the Tribunal. +1 more

Court's answer

The dispute raised in the petition arises out of disciplinary proceedings initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and pertains to service matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the Supreme Court's judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal and therefore cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Key takeaways

Considering the above, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition in view of the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal.ratio¶21
The petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and pending applications stand disposed of.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service matter / maintainability — Writ petition by a petitioner appearing in person seeking quashing of a Memorandum/Chargesheet dated 27.09.2024 and consequential disciplinary proceedings for inordinate, unexplained and prejudicial delay, and restoration of pensionary benefits. High Court of Delhi held the dispute arises out of disciplinary proceedings under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, pertaining to service matters within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; relying on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261, the Court held the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal and cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court. Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before CAT; pending applications disposed of.

$~95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 4559/2026, CM APPL. 22227-22229/2026

SHRI VINOD KUMAR MALIK .....Petitioner

Through: In person.

versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R % 07.04.2026

1. This writ petition seeks the following reliefs:

“A. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and setting aside the Memorandum/ Chargesheet dated 27.09.2024, together with all pending and consequential disciplinary proceedings, in view of the inordinate, unexplained, and prejudicial delay wholly attributable to the Respondents.

B. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to grant the Petitioner all consequential service and pensionary benefits flowing from the quashing of the Memorandum/ Charge sheet dated 27.09.2024 and the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, in accordance with law.

C. Issue the direction to the chief secretary of Delhi to order a departmental Inquiry to establish the accountability in delay to conclude the inquiry against the petitioner and conclude it within stipulated time period. D. Issue the direction to the secretary of Education DOE Delhi to issue new anti-dated vigilance clearance report without extraneous insertions and subsequently regular pension order restoring all due benefits and submit a compliance report to the Hon’ble High court within 15 days.

E. Pass an orders in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent allcost of and relating to the present petition;”

At the outset, this Court has considered the maintainability of the

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 12:20:20

present petition. The dispute raised herein arises out of disciplinary proceedings initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and pertains to service matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal¹ under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Moreover, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. ,² the Petitioner, has an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal, and therefore, cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition in view of the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy before CAT.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law before CAT. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

SANJEEV NARULA, J

APRIL 7, 2026 nk

1 “

2 (1997) 3 SCC 261.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/04/2026 at 12:20:20