Pallab Kumar Sarkar Vs Union of India and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pallab Kumar Sarkar Vs Union of India and Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition and pending application(s) dismissed as withdrawn, with leave and liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with law; no substantive relief (quashing, reinstatement, back wages, compensation) granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 imposing compulsory retirement on the Petitioner ought to be quashed by a writ of certiorari (prayer (a)). +3 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the Petitioner is a Central Government employee (Intelligence Bureau under the Ministry of Home Affairs) whose matter arises from disciplinary proceedings under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, service matters of this nature fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; and in view of the law in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, disputes of this nature are required to be agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the first instance, the writ jurisdiction of the Court not being ordinarily invoked at the threshold.

Key takeaways

Counsel for the Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with law; leave and liberty, as prayed for, were granted.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) 5809/2026, Delhi High Court, Sanjeev Narula, J., 29.04.2026) filed by Pallab Kumar Sarkar, an Intelligence Bureau employee under the Ministry of Home Affairs and thus a Central Government employee, seeking quashing of an order dated 09.02.2023 imposing compulsory retirement (arising from disciplinary proceedings under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964), reinstatement as Assistant Director with full back wages, seniority and consequential benefits, and special compensation of Rs.5 Crores with litigation expenses. The Court noted that in terms of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, service matters of such employees fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and that per the law in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, disputes of this nature are required to be agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the first instance, the writ jurisdiction not being ordinarily invoked at the threshold. Counsel sought leave to withdraw; leave and liberty to pursue remedies before the Tribunal were granted, and the petition with pending applications was dismissed as withdrawn.

$~129

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 5809/2026 & CM APPLs. 28610-28611/2026

PALLAB KUMAR SARKAR .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Niraj Kumar Jha and Mr. Madhuresh Kumar Mishra, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: None.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R % 29.04.2026

1. This writ petition seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Order dated 09.02.2023 imposing compulsory retirement on the Petitioner; b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to his withheld post (Assiatant Director, w.e.f October 2021) with full back wages, seniority and all consequential benefits;

c) Issue direction to the respondents to pay special compensation of Rs.5 Crores for the mental torture, irrevocable loss of reputation, causing detrimental health (especially to the eyes) caused due to immense depression leading to self-annihilatory tendencies. Also to pay litigation expenses which would be incurred by compensate the petitioner for the damages caused due to the arbitrary and illegal orders”.

The Petitioner is an employee of the Intelligence Bureau, which functions under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, and is thus a Central Government employee. The impugned action arises out of disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In terms of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,

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 30/04/2026 at 13:24:49

1985, service matters concerning such employees fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.¹ , disputes of this nature are required to be agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the first instance, and the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not ordinarily invoked at the threshold.

In view of the above, counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with law.

Leave and liberty, as prayed for, are granted.

The writ petition, along with pending application(s), stands dismissed as withdrawn.

SANJEEV NARULA, J

APRIL 29, 2026/ hc

1 (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 30/04/2026 at 13:24:49