Disposed¶21

Rajiv Ranjan v. Union of India

Delhi HC5 May 2026W.P.(C)/8093/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 8093/2024; CM APPLs. 55235/2025 & 29897/2026; Rajiv Ranjan v. Union of India; Central Administrative Tribunal; OA 1609/2020; judgment dated 22 October 2020; charge sheet dated 21 February 2020; departmental proceedings; prematurity at charge sheet stage; order of punishment dated 13 April 2026; leave and liberty to challenge punishment order; de hors and unprejudiced; disposed; C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla; oral order 05.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; leave and liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the order of punishment dated 13 April 2026 in accordance with law, with any such challenge to be decided de hors and unprejudiced by the Tribunal's order dated 22 October 2020. ¶21

Rajiv Ranjan Vs Union of India — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's challenge (via the Tribunal route) to the charge sheet survives, given that during the pendency of the writ proceedings the charge sheet has culminated in an order of punishment dated 13 April 2026.

¶19

Court's answer

Since the charge sheet has culminated in an order of punishment dated 13 April 2026, the basis of the OA does not survive; the petitioner is granted leave and liberty to challenge the order of punishment in accordance with law.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

As the Tribunal did not address the merits of the charges against the petitioner, any decision on the petitioner's challenge to the order of punishment would be taken de hors and unprejudiced by the impugned Tribunal order dated 22 October 2020.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (C. Hari Shankar, J. with Om Prakash Shukla, J.; oral order, 05.05.2026) disposing of W.P.(C) 8093/2024 (Rajiv Ranjan v. Union of India), which challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's judgment dated 22 October 2020 in OA 1609/2020 dismissing, as premature, the OA against a charge sheet dated 21 February 2020 initiating departmental proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded at the outset that, during the pendency, the charge sheet had culminated in an order of punishment dated 13 April 2026. As the basis of the OA therefore did not survive, the Bench disposed of the writ petition, granting leave and liberty to challenge the order of punishment afresh in accordance with law; and, since the Tribunal had not addressed the merits of the charges, held that any decision on such challenge would be taken de hors and unprejudiced by the Tribunal's order dated 22 October 2020.

¶1

$~67

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 8093/2024, CM APPLs. 55235/2025 & 29897/2026 RAJIV RANJAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Jatin Parashar and Mr. Pragyesh Pratap Singh, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra, Advs. for UOI

¶6

UNION OF INDIA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

¶9

¶10

ORDER (ORAL) 05.05.2026

¶11

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶12

1. This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 22 October 2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal¹ in OA 1609/2020.

¶13

2. The OA was directed against a charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 21 February 2020, initiating departmental proceedings against him.

¶14

3. The Tribunal dismissed the OA on the ground that it was

¶15

1 “Tribunal”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8093/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 1.05.2026 12:42:25

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

premature and that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to interfere at the charge sheet stage.

¶18

4. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits at the outset that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the charge sheet has culminated in an order of punishment dated 13 April 2026.

¶19

5. That being so, the basis of the OA does not survive, and it would be necessary for the petitioner, if so advised to challenge the order of punishment. Leave and liberty is granted to the petitioner to do so in accordance with law.

¶20

6. Inasmuch as the Tribunal has not addressed the merits of the charges against the petitioner, any decision on the petitioner’s challenge to the order of punishment would be taken de hors and unprejudiced by the impugned order dated 22 October 2020 passed by the Tribunal.

¶21

7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶23

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

¶24

MAY 5, 2026 /aky

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8093/2024 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 1.05.2026 12:42:25

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Rajiv Ranjan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Ranjan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shridhar Vyas and Ors. Vs National Board of Examination in Medical Science and Ors.

Insp/Exe Ranbir Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jugal Pratap Vs Delhi Skill and Enterpreneurship University & Ors.

Mohd Dilshad Vs Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board & Ors.

Technopak Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nabard Consultancy Services Private Limited & Anr.

Jay Bajarangbali Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Training

University Grants Commission & Anr. Vs Rajesh Anand & Anr.

Ravi Chilkuri Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Seema Choudhary

Delhi Development Authority Vs Krishan Kant Sharma

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Vs Tech Square Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Pawan Kaul Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Lt. Col. Pandappa Kotagi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India Vs Neeru Garg and Ors.