Union of India & Ors. v. Krishna Pada Das

Delhi HC10 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/6675/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 6675/2025; Union of India & Ors. v. Krishna Pada Das; sealed cover / sealed envelope; Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench; O.A. 2313/2024; no article of charges issued; discharge in criminal case; Criminal Case No. 305404/2016; State v. Nitin Biswas; petition rendered infructuous; disposal as infructuous; liberty to file revival application; Anil Kshetarpal, J.; Amit Mahajan, J.; decision dated 10.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition and pending applications disposed of as infructuous; liberty granted to the Petitioner to file an appropriate application for revival, provided the cause of continuing the present Petition survives. ¶¶20

Union of India & Ors. Vs Krishna Pada Das — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Impugned Order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A. 2313/2024, directing the Petitioner to open the sealed envelope since no article of charges had been issued to the Respondent, was liable to be interfered with. +1 more

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

The Petition is rendered infructuous, since the discharge of the Respondent in the criminal case is not disputed and it is likewise not in dispute that no Article of Charges has yet been served upon the Respondent.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

The Petition, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of as infructuous, with liberty reserved to the Petitioner to file an appropriate application for revival if the cause for continuing the Petition survives.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 6675/2025; Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, JJ.) — Union of India & Ors. v. Krishna Pada Das. The Petitioners challenged the order dated 14.01.2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. 2313/2024, by which the Respondent's application was allowed and the Petitioners were directed to open the sealed envelope, no article of charges having been issued to the Respondent. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondent was discharged by the learned Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 305404/2016 captioned State v. Nitin Biswas. Holding that the discharge was not disputed and that no Article of Charges had still been served upon the Respondent, the Court found the Petition rendered infructuous and disposed of it, along with pending applications, granting the Petitioner liberty to seek revival if the cause for continuing the Petition survived.

¶1

$~90

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6675/2025, CM APPL. 30235/2025, CM APPL. 30237/2025 and CM APPL. 38483/2025

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Iram Majid CGSC along with Mr. Mohd. Suboor and Mr. Shivam Parashar Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

KRISHNA PADA DAS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Jasvinder Kaur, Adv.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶9

O R D E R % 10.02.2026

¶10

The present Petition has been filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 14.01.2025 [hereinafter referred to as 8Impugned Order9] passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. 2313/2024.

¶11

The O.A. filed by the Respondent was allowed vide Impugned Order, while directing the Petitioner to open sealed envelope because no article of charges have been issued to the Respondent all this while. 3. The Petitioner filed the present Petition claiming that the Respondent is facing prosecution in a criminal case, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.

¶12

On 05.02.2026, learned counsel representing the Respondent submitted that the Petition is rendered infructuous because the Respondent has been discharged in the aforesaid case. The order passed on 05.02.2026, is extracted as under:

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 11/02/2026 at 11:26:20

¶15

<1. Learned counsel representing the Respondent submits that, in view of the judgment of discharge passed by the learned Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 305404/2016 captioned State v. Nitin Biswas, the present Petition has been rendered infructuous.

¶16

2. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners seeks time to take instructions.

¶17

3. List on 07.02.2026 in the Supplementary List.=

¶18

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submitted that she is awaiting response of the Police, as to whether any Appeal is being filed or not.

¶19

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that the present Petition is rendered infructuous since the discharge of the Respondent in a criminal case is not being disputed. It is also not in dispute that no Article of Charges has yet been served upon the Respondent.

¶20

Consequently, the Petition, along with the pending applications, stand disposed of as infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to file appropriate application for revival, provided the cause of continuing the present Petition survives.

¶21

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶22

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

¶23

FEBRUARY 10, 2026 s.godara/kb

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 11/02/2026 at 11:26:20

Union of India & Ors. v. Krishna Pada Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Krishna Pada Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch Jaswant Singh Mahavidyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Sh. Narendra Singh Vs the Chairman, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Nuray Realtech Private Limited Vs Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.

Poonam Sharma and Ors. Vs M/S a 1SECURITY Service and Ors.

Anand Khattar Vs D.D.A. & Anr.

Priyanshi Zingaala Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Jagmohan Batra Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

The Indure Private Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Vs Ranjit Singh

Manoj Kumar Solanki Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Dr. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dr. Laxmi Narain Gupta and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dr. Shabnam Bhandari Grover Vs Union of India and Ors.