Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Tejinder Kaur vs M/O Women And Child Development on 31 October, 2025
1
Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2212/2019
With
O.A. No. 2914/2023
Reserved on: 08.10.2025
Pronounced on: 31.10.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
O.A. No. 2212/2019
Dr. Tejinder Kaur (aged 56 years) Jt. Dir
Dir,
D/o Shri Sudershan Singh,
Address: M--16,
16, Green Park (Main), New Delhi - 110016.
...Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Women & Child Development
& Vice-Chairperson,
Chairperson, NIPCCD (Appointing Authority)
Room No. 601, A-Wing,
A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra
Prasad Road, New Dellhi - 110001.
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. G. S. Virk)
2
Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023
O.A. No. 2914/2023
Dr. Tejinder Kaur,
Kaur
Age: 60 years,
D/o Shri Sudershan Singh,
Sing
Address: M--16,
16, Green Park (Main), New Delhi - 110016.
...Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1.Union
Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Women & Child Development
& Vice-Chairperson,
Chairperson, NIPCCD (Appointing Authority)
Room No. 601, A-Wing,
A Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001
2.National
National Institute of Public Cooperation & Child
Development (NIPCCD)
Through its Director
5, Siri Institutional Area,
August Kranti Marg,
New Delhi - 110016.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma)
3
Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) O.A. No. 2212/2019 In the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a) quash the order dated 5.12.2018 passed by Respondent and letter dated 22.2.2019 issued by Respondent [at Annexure-1 Annexure 1 & 2] and direct Respondent Respondent-
Appointing Appointing-cum-Disciplinary Disciplinary Authority to process the case of Applicant in accordance with Rules & Govt. Instructions on the subject, following prescribed procedure and consider the leave application of the Applicant dated 5.11.2018 5.11.2018 alongwith submissions accompanying it, in the light of events upto the date of filing of the instant O.A.;
b) pass any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. At the outset, the applicant, applicant, who appeared in person, highlighted the impugned order dated 05.12.2018 and 22.02.2019, which reads as under:
(a) Impugned order dated 05.12.2018 :
"ORDER WHEREAS, Dr. Tejinder Kaur, Joint Director, National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development (NIPCCD) was transferred to Regional Centre, Indore as Regional Director vide Office Order No. 235/2016 dated 09.09.2016 with immediate effect.4
Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023
2. WHEREAS, Dr. Kaur filed CMA No. 33866/2016 in WP(C) No. 5928/2016 in High Court of Delhi seeki seeking stay on the transfer order.
3. WHEREAS, the Hon'ble Court vide its Order dated 16.09.2016 in WP(C) no. 5928/2016 granted the same with directions as under:
".. It is further clarified that since the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner stands relieved on 09.09.2016, the petitioner would not be required to either report to Delhi Office or to Indore Office and the absence of the petitioner shall not be taken as absence without leave".
4. WHEREAS, the above mentioned writ petition was disposed of vide Judgement dated 12.12.2017 stating that the petitioner (Dr. Kaur) shall pursue her remedies with regard to the service matter with the Central Administrative Tribunal and that all the interim orders are vacated.
5. WHEREAS, after the disposal of the case, Dr. Kaur did not join the Regional Centre at Indore and filed OA No. 1110/2018 in Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
6. WHEREAS, Dr. Kaur had also filed OA No. 3582/2016 in the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Dr. Tejinder Kaur vs UOI & NIPCCD) seeking orders of the Tribunal to quash the Office Order No. 235/2016 dated 09.09.2016.
7. WHEREAS, the Hon'ble Tribunal vide Judgement dated 26.07.2018 disposed of the matter.
8. WHEREAS, the Hon'ble Tribunal vide its Judgement dated 25.07.2018 in OA No. 1110/2018 (Dr. Tejinder Kaur vs UOI & NIPCCD) disposed of the matter with directions as under:
"...Any period of absence of the applicant from 12.12.2017 shall be treated as unauthorized absence and the respondents are at liberty to deal with it in n accordance with law."
9. WHEREAS, even after the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble CAT, New Delhi, Dr. Tejinder Kaur joined the Regional Centre, Indore as Regional Director on 12.10.2018.
10. NOW, THEREFORE, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal and with the approval of the Secretary, WCD, the period of absence of Dr. Tejinder Kaur from 5 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 12.12.2017 to 11.10.2018 is treated as unauthorized absence, and thereby attracts the provisions of FR 17."
(b) Impugned order dated 22.02.2019:
Subject: Submission of Statutory Appeal under Rule 26 S of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 against Ministry's order dated 05.12.2018 - regarding.
Madam, I am directed to refer to your Appeal dated 16.01.2019 addressed to Hon'ble Minister, MWCD. With reference to the above, above, you are informed that the Ministry's Order dated 05.12.2018 has been issued in view of the directions of Hon'ble CAT, New Delhi in its Judgement dated 25.07.2018 in OA No. 1110/2018 (copy enclosed).
You are further informed that the above mentioned Ord Order is not an outcome of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against you under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and thus, cannot be treated as an Appeal to be considered by the Appellate Authority as envisaged in Rule 27 of CCS(CCA) Rules. The order passed by the Trib Tribunal can be challenged by you at an appropriate forum. This issues with the approval of the competent authority."
3. The applicant, who appeared in person, submitted that she is a senior officer of National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development Development (NIPCCD) under the Ministry of Women & Child Development and was transferred and posted as Regional Director, Indore vide order dated 09.09.2016. She stated that despite this order, the then Director, NIPCCD and his subordinates deliberately prevented her from joining and functioning on 6 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 the said post due to personal bias and vested interests. The applicant pplicant contended that, to mislead this Tribunal in earlier proceedings, OA No. 3582/2016 and OA No. 1110/2018, the respondent-Institute r Institute falsely projected h her transfer as bona fide and urgent, while in fact she was never allowed to assume charge.
3.1. The applicant further submitted that, thereafter, without conducting any disciplinary proceedings under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the respondent respondent-Ministry arbitrarily issued order dated 05.12.2018 declaring her "unauthorizedly absent" and stopped her salary, though the Ministry's own letter dated 22.02.2019 admits that no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated or concluded prior to the said order. It was was also her submission that the chargesheet dated 17.05.2018, which contained an allegation of unauthorized absence, was superseded by a fresh chargesheet dated 06.07.2018 that dropped this charge, and hence there was no subsisting allegation or finding of unauthorized absence. The applicant pointed out that the Inquiry Report dated dated 11.07.2022, accepted by the respondent--Authority, Authority, has established misconduct on the 7 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 part of the then Director, NIPCCD and his subordinates, confirming that she was wrongfully pr prevented from joining her post. She stated that she thus remained "under "under-
posting" and on compulsory wait from 10.09.2016 to 28.02.2021 for no fault of her own, and therefore cannot be treated as unauthorizedly absent. The applicant also submitted that invocation invoc of FR 17-A A by the respondent is illegal, as the mandatory procedure under FRSR and CCS (CCA) Rules was never followed, and consequently, the impugned order dated 05.12.2018 and letter dated 22.02.2019 deserve to be quashed, with a direction to treat the said period as "on duty/compulsory wait" with restoration of pay and service benefits.
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the impugned order dated 05.12.2018 and letter dated 22.02.2019 are legal, valid, and sustainable in law. It was contended that the applicant had earlier challenged her transfer order dated 09.09.2016 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 5928/2016,, wherein an interim interim stay was granted on 8 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 16.09.2016 but subsequently vacated vide judgment dated 12.12.2017,, with liberty to approach this Tribunal. The applicant thereafter filed OA No. 3592/2016 before this Tribunal, which was dismissed, and again filed OA No. 1110/2018,, which which too was dismissed on 25.07.2018 with a categorical finding that the applicant applicant was on unauthorized absence with effect from 12.12.2017 12.12.2017, i.e., the date of vacation of stay by the Hon'ble High Court. The said order was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Co Court in W.P. No. 8923/2018 vide judgment dated 19.09.2018. Learned counsel submitted that in view of concurrent findings of two judicial forums holding the applicant to be on unauthorized absence, NIPCCD was duty duty-bound to pass an administrative order and initiate initiate disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the order dated 05.12.2018 and charge sheet under FR 17-A(iii) 17 were issued, as per which her past service stood forfeited. It was further argued that the Respondent Institute acted strictly in compliance with Respondent-Institute judicial udicial directions and statutory provisions, and that the impugned action cannot be termed unilateral, arbitrary, or illegal. Learned counsel thus urged that the OA is devoid of 9 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 merit, barred by repeated litigation on the same issue, and liable to be dismissed.
dismi O.A. No. 2914/2023
5. In the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a) Pass orders quashing communication dated 07.07.2020 and directing Respondents to pay Applicant Pension, Commuted Pension, and Gratuity, completing all formalities as per procedure prescribed in CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, and by treating the period of Applicant having been declared to be "under "under-posting" as "duty," within the timeframe fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and along with interest @ the rate of 7.
7.5% per annum, till the date of crediting the payments to the bank account of Applicant; and
b) Pass any other order(s) that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of the case."
6. At the outset, the applicant, who appeared in perso person, highlighted the impugned order dated 07.07.2020, which reads as under:
" a) impugned order dated 07.07.2020 :
Madam, I am directed to r.efer to your reply dated 18.09.2019 and to state that your · services prior to 12 October, 2018 stands forfeited by the Order of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and same as ratified by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi holdinholding you on unauthorized absence, followed by administrative order 10 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 dated ostn December, 2018. 2. As far as the other issues raised by you are concerned action being taken in term of CCS{Conduct) Rule 1964 &·GCS{CCA) Rule1965."
of-CCS{Conduct)
7. Narrating the fact of this ca case, the applicant submitted that she served the NIPCCD, under the Ministry of Women & Child Development, from 26.09.1990 to 31.07.2023, holding the posts of Research Assistant, Assistant Director, and Joint Director, with over 32 years of regular service; during this period, she was on Extra Extra-
ordinary Leave for two years (2001-2003) (2001 2003) for pursuing her Ph.D. and on "under posting"/compulsory "under-posting"/compulsory wait from 10.09.2016 to 28.02.2021, both periods to be treated as duty under the rules and Tribunal decisions. 7.1. She added that a departmental inquiry under Rule 14, CCS(CCA) Rules, was conducted against her, and the Inquiry Report dated 14.07.2022 exonerated her completely, confirming that she was unlawfully kept under under-
posting to harass her; however, the respondents ign ignored these findings and issued impugned orders, including those dated 05.12.2018, 07.07.2020, wrongly declaring her services forfeited and treating her as unauthorizedly absent without following due procedure. As a result, she has been 11 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 denied her pension, gratuity, GPF, and leave encashment since her retirement on 31.07.2023, in violation of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, and relevant Government of India instructions. She, therefore, prayed for a direction to release all her pensionary benefits, quash the impug impugned orders, and declare that her entire service, including the period of under-posting, under posting, be treated as duty to ensure her lawful and dignified retirement.
8. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the applicant was transferred from New Delhi to Indore w.e.f. 09.09.2016 by the competent authority, but she did not immediately join the new station. Instead, she filed an interim application (CM No. 33866/2016) in in a pending writ petition before the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) No. 5928/2016), seeking to challenge the transfer. The High Court, by order dated 16.09.2016, stayed the transfer, but subsequently dismissed the writ petition along with the interim application n on 12.12.2017. Thereaft Thereafter, the applicant approached this Tribunal through O.A. No. 1110/2018, 12 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 which was disposed of on 25.07.2018, directing that any absence of the applicant from 12.12.2017 would be treated as unauthorized absence, and the respondents w were at liberty to deal with it according to law. The applicant joined her duty at Indore only on 12.10.2018.
12.10.2018. In compliance with this Tribunal order, the respondents issued an order on 05.12.2018 treating the period from 12.12.2017 to 11.10.2018 as unauthorized unauthorized absence.
8.1. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that unauthorized absence is defined under FR 17 17-A and includes, inter alia, absence without authority, absence during an illegal strike, or desertion of post, and such periods are deemed deemed to cause interruption in service unless otherwise allowed by the competent authority. Further, Rule 27 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, provides that interruptions in service generally entail forfeiture of past service, except in cases of authorized leave, suspension immediately followed by reinstatement, joining time during transfers, or transfer to non-qualifying non qualifying service under government orders. Applying these rules, learned counsel for the respondents asserted that the applicant's service 13 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 prior to 12.10.2018 has been rightly treated as forfeited through the office order dated 07.07.2020. 8.2. The learned counsel for the respondents also highlighted that the applicant was absent from 16.03.2019 to 28.02.2021 from the Indore Regional Centre, which further ther interrupted her qualifying service. A major penalty charge sheet was issued and disposed of by the Secretary, MWCD, on 26.06.2023, wherein the Ministry disagreed with the inquiry officer's report dated 11.07.2022, and upheld the Ministry's earlier order order dated 05.12.2018 treating the period of absence from 12.12.2017 to 11.10.2018 as unauthorized. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to pensionary benefits, and her request for interim relief to release pension was dismissed by the Tribunal on 16.10.2023.
16.10.2023. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents asserted that all actions were lawful and in accordance with the relevant FRs and CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, and therefore, the OA is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 14 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023
9. Heard d learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
10. ANALYSIS :
10.1. O.A. No. 2212 of 2019 and O.A. No. 2914 of 2023 are being heard and decided together. Therefore, the observations recorded in O.A. No. 2212 of 2019 shall have a direct bearing on the reliefs claimed in the subsequent O.A. 10.2. The background of the case reveals that the applicant was transferred from Delhi to Indore by order dated 09.09.2016. As per the record, the applicant had filed W.P. No. 5928/2016 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, impugning, inter alia, a "status report" dated 08.09.2015 (hereafter "the impugned report") prepared by respondent no. 5 therein, which held that the complaint of sexual harassment made by one Ms. X (name with withheld to avoid ignominy) was time-barred.
time barred. The applicant, being the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of respondent no. 2 (therein) at the headquarters in Delhi, contended that the impugned report was wholly 15 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 contrary to the provisions provisi of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("the Act"). It appears that the applicant acted as a whistleblower, and her subsequent transfer to Indore was a retaliatory measure.
10.3. The applicant moved moved CM No. 33866/2016 in W.P. No. 5928/2016 seeking a stay on the operation of the order of the Secretary (WCD)-cum-Vice-Chairperson (WCD) Chairperson of the Institute dated 09.09.2016 transferring her to the Regional Centre, Indore. The Hon'ble High Court, vide interim or order dated 16.09.2016, granted an interim stay of the transfer, which continued ued until 12.12.2017, when the Writ P Petition was dismissed. The High Court, vide order dated 12.12.2017, observed as under:
"The petitioner has contended that the said decision has been taken to frustrate the interim orders passed by this Court on 18.07.2016, whereby the respondents were restrained from changing the constitution of the ICC. The petitioner has also sought to cha challenge her transfer orders on various other grounds. Clearly, the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue in Delhi only because the complaint of Ms. X was not referred to the ICC. Even if it is assumed that the Institute has not been following the provisions provisions of the Act in its letter and spirit, the petitioner cannot insist on being continued to be posted in Delhi. This Court is refraining from making any further observations with regard to the averments made by the petitioner in this regard and it wou would be open for 16 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 the petitioner to pursue her remedies with regard to the service matter with the Central Administrative Tribunal.
29. The petition is accordingly dismissed. All interim orders are vacated, and the pending applications are disposed of."
10.4. Meanwhile, the applicant had also preferred O.A. No. 3582/2016 before the Tribunal, wherein vide order dated 21.10.2016, the following direction was issued:
"The applicant has also sought interim relief for maintaining status quo with respect to the imp impugned order dated 09.09.2016 whereby the applicant has been transferred from Delhi to Indore. The applicant has already approached the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 5928/2016 wherein she has also sought interim relief in respect to the same impugned or order and Hon'ble Delhi High Court has passed the following interim order in CM No. 33866/2016:
'Till the next date of hearing, the respondents shall not enforce the order dated 09.09.2016. It is further clarified that since the contention of the respondent respondents is that the petitioner stands relieved on 09.09.2016, the petitioner would not be required to either report to Delhi Office or to Indore Office and the absence of the petitioner shall not be taken as absence without leave.
Dasti under signature of the Court Court Master.' In view of the above, it is not appropriate for us to pass any interim order."
10.5. Subsequently, the applicant filed O.A. No. 1110/2018 challenging the uncommunicated order dated 24.05.2017, by which her salary was stopped while approving the draft Memorandum dated 24.05.2017.
17Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 10.6. The core issue for consideration is whether the respondents' stand in the impugned communication dated 07.07.2020 -- that "your services prior to 12 October 2018 stand forfeited" -- can be sustained in light of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court, which observed that the period from 12.12.2017 was to be treated as unauthorized absence.
10.7. Examining the matter within the scope of judicial review, the impugned office orders appear to ha have been issued without independent application of mind and dehors the provisions of law, for the following reasons:
(i) It cannot be said that the entire period prior to 12.10.2018 was unauthorized.
(ii) Both the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court confi confined their observations to the period from 12.12.2017; the same must be dealt with strictly in accordance with law.
(iii) Observations of the courts must be read in the context of the prayers and reliefs sought in the respective OAs, Petitions, or Applications.
Applicat 18 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023
(iv) The plea of constructive res judicata does not apply in the present case. It would be harsh and legally unsustainable to conclude that an employee with over 32 years and 10 months of service could forfeit her entire service based solely on such observations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Narain Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 246, held as under:
"23. Coming to the second limb of the argument based on the order of this Court in Special Leave Petitions that the present claim of the respondent Nos. 3 to 34 is barred by constructive res judicata, we find no merit because the dispute raised in Rajendra Sinha (supra) was confined to the challenge to the part of the Rule and writ petitioners/appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 1 1381- 84/91 prayed that their adhoc services be recorded for the purposes of seniority... We are of the view that the claim of the respondent Nos. 3 to 34 cannot be rejected in the present proceedings on the ground of res judicata or constructive res judicata."
judicat
(v) The doctrine interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium -- that there should be an end to litigation -- aims to prevent vexatious repetition of proceedings (see M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka, Karnataka, (2011) 3 SCC 408). However, this doctrine cannot override justice in cases of procedural illegality.
19Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023
(vi) In Central Bank of India & Ors. vs. Dragendra Singh Jadon, Jadon, Civil Appeal No. 5036 of 2022 (decided on 02.08.2022), the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified:
"The The principles of res judicata are attracted wh where the matter in issue in the later proceedings have directly and substantially been in issue in earlier proceedings, between the same parties, in a competent forum having jurisdiction. Res judicata debars the Court from exercising jurisdiction to determine determine the lis, if it has attained finality between the parties. There is a distinction between res judicata and issue estoppel. In the case of issue estoppel, a party against whom an issue has been decided would be estopped from raising the same issue again.
17. Where an issue could have been raised in earlier proceedings, but has not been raised, the principle of constructive res judicata would be attracted to deny relief, for it is not the policy of law that multiple proceedings should be initiated in Court in relation to the same cause of action. Where the cause of action for initiation of proceedings is a distinctive cause of action, the principles of res judicata would not apply.
18. What was in issue in the earlier writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3091 of 2009 was the legality of the Award and other consequential benefits. The cause of action for Writ Petition No. 1571 of 2013 arose subsequently. The issue in the later writ petition was not whether the Respondent was entitled to back wages for the period prior prior to the date of the Award, which issue had been decided in the earlier writ petition, but the issue of fixation of pay and seniority upon reinstatement in service. The question in the second writ petition was, whether, for the purposes of seniority and fixation of pay, the Respondent was to be treated as a newly appointed employee and that too with effect from 18th 8 August 2012, when the Award directing his reinstatement was dated 10th September 2008.
19. In our considered view, the learned Single Bench of the High Court rightly granted relief to the Respondent. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Appeal of the Appellants and 20 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 directed that the Respondent would have to be treated in service from the date ofof removal till the date of actual reinstatement in service and would accordingly be entitled to seniority and the right to be considered for promotion, but would not be entitled to back wages.
20. We find no infirmity with the concurrent findings of the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court. Single There is a difference between reappointment and reinstatement. Reinstatement means to return a person or thing to its previous position or status. An order of reinstatement puts a person back to the same p position.
21. The Tribunal had granted the Respondent, the relief of reinstatement. Considering that the Respondent had not actually rendered service to the Appellant Appellant-Bank and that he had been earning in the intervening period, the Tribunal denied him back wages.
wages. The Tribunal and the High Court (both the Single Bench and the Division Bench) have in effect and substance found the termination of service of the Respondent to be wrongful.
22. The Appellant-Bank Appellant Bank cannot take advantage of its own wrong of wrongfully dismissing the Respondent from service, to deny him the benefit of seniority, promotion and other benefits to which he would have been entitled, if he had attended to his duties."
10.8. Although the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1110/2018 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. No. 8923/2018 held that the applicant's period from 12.12.2017 was unauthorized, the same has to be decided strictly in accordance with law, especially since she was kept under "under "under-posting" from 10.09.2016 to 28.02.2021, as evident fr from email dated 27.12.2018, which reads as under:
"It is to be reminded that no formal order for assigning the post of Regional Director, Indore till date been issued to 21 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 you. Mere joining to an instituion does not mean appointment to certain post, such a du duration is called "under posting". It is thefore, advised to function as per the existing hierarchy."
10.9. The applicant had also submitted a representation dated 05.11.2018 seeking regularization of the period from 13.12.2017 to 10.10.2018 through grant o of leave under the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1975. No administrative order was passed on the same.
10.10 The substantive charge of the Training Division, NIPCCD, and the additional charge of Regional Director, NIPCCD, Indore, was issued only on 14.06.2021. The order specifying her next duty station and date of reporting was issued on 28.02.2021. The said order reads as under:
"Dr. Tejinder Kaur, who had been under posting, is directed to report at the Headquarters of the Institute at New Delhi, on the post of Joint Joint Director with immediate effect in the forenoon of 1 March, 2021."
st 10.11. There exists no concept of "deemed forfeiture of service" under FR-17-A FR A or Rules 23/27 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Even under these provisions, the principles of natural justice must be followed. 10.12. Assuming the respondents acted under FR FR-17-A, the office orders dated 05.12.2018 and 07.07.2020 ought to 22 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 have been preceded by the due process under FR 17(1) and FR-17-A, A, which mandates issuance of a show cause notice by the Leave Sanctioning Authority, in the following format:
"ANNEXURE-2 No. ......................... /2022 Government of India ........................ Region/Division Dated: ..................
MEMORANDUM (BY REGISTERED POST) Attention of Shri ..................., ..................., holding the post of ..............., is invited to this office memorandum of even number dated ..............., wherein he was directed to report for duty immediately. However, no response has been received till date. Shri ............ has been absent from duty w.e.f. ............ without intimation, amounting to gross misconduct under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Remaining absent willfully and unauthorizedly without information attracts the provisions of FR 17(1) and FR-17-A."
FR 10.13. FR FR-17-A provides rovides that, without prejudice to Rule 27 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, unauthorized absence as --
"(i)
(i) in the case of employees working in industrial establishments, during a strike which has been declared illegal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or any other law for the time being in force;
(ii) in the case of other employees as a result of action in combination or in concerted manner, such as during a strike, without any authority from, or valid reason to the satisfaction of the competent authority; and
(iii) in the case of an individual employee, remaining absent unauthorizedly unauthorizedly or deserting the post, shall be deemed to cause an interruption or break in the service 23 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 of the employee, unless otherwise decided by the competent authority for the purpose of leave travel concession, quasi-permanency quasi permanency and eligibility for appearing in departmental examinations, for which a minimum period of continuous service is required.
EXPLANATION 1.-- 1. For purposes of this rule, "strike" includes a general, token, sympathetic or any similar strike, and also participation in a bandh or in similar acti activities.
EXPLANATION 2.--2. In this rule, the term "Competent Authority" means the "Appointing Authority". "
10.14 Accordingly, any order under FR FR-17-A must necessarily be passed by the Appointing Authority.
10.15 FR-17(1) 17(1) stipulates that "an officer who is absent from duty without authority shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during such absence." FR FR-17-A further provides that such unauthorized absence "shall be deemed to cause an interruption or break in service unless otherwise decided by the competent competent authority." Hence, proper notice and opportunity must precede any punitive action.
10.16 Forfeiture of service can occur only in cases of dismissal or removal under Rule 24, or resignation under Rule 26, of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Interrup Interruption in 24 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 service under Rule 27 is not automatic and must be preceded by due proceedings under FR FR-17/FR-17-A. 10.17 There is no evidence that the mandatory procedure was followed or that any court order dispensed with it. If an employee fails to join duty despite despite notices, disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by the competent authority by framing articles of charge. The period of unauthorized absence may be treated as dies non,, but it cannot result in forfeiture of entire service. Moreover, the leave leave-sanctioning authority must ensure compliance with Rule 32(2)(a) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, while regulating leave under Rule 8 thereof. In the present case, no such orders were passed on the applicant's representation dated 05.11.2018.O.A. No. 2914/2023 2914/202
11. The Hon'ble High Court, vide its order dated 12.09.2025 in W.P. No. 14101/2025,, was pleased to pass the following order(s):
"1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in O.A. No.2914/2023, titled Dr. Tejinder Kaur v. Women and 25 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 Child Development, rejecting the interim prayer of the petitioner herein for grant of provisional pension.
2. While we see no infirmity in the Impugned Order, at the same time, taking into account that the petitioner was also praying for grant of provisional pension, we request the learned Tribunal to take up the O.A. for hearing on 08.10.2025, when the same is listed before it.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents assures us that the respondents would fully cooperate with the learned Tribunal to ensure that the hearing of the O.A. takes place on that day.
4. The petition and the pending application are disposed of in the above terms."
11.1 We deem it proper to deal with and dispose of the O.A. itself.
11.2 The office orders dated 05.12.2018 and 07.07.2020 are not only arbitrary but also perverse, as no due process of law was followed while passing them. 11.3 It is not in dispute that the Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report dated 11.07.2022 11.07.2022, wherein the articles of charge framed against the applicant were held "not proved." Thereafter, on 01.08.2022 01.08.2022, the applicant was communicated the decision of the Disciplinar Disciplinary Authority, which reads as follows:
"I am directed to enclose herewith the Inquiry Report dated 11.07.2022 for Departmental Inquiry held against Dr. Tejinder Kaur under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 26 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 based on chargesheet dated 26.03.2019.
2. The Disciplinary Disciplinary Authority has accepted the Inquiry Report but has observed that the statement mentioned at page 14 of the Report about the three officers of NIPCCD, viz., Dr. P. Krishnamoorthy, Dr. K.C. George, and Shri Balbir Rai, is beyond the scope of inquiry, an and therefore these may not be taken on record.
3. The Inquiry Report is hereby enclosed as per Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, to submit written representation or submission, if any, to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days."
11.4 The issue relating relating to the alleged unauthorized absence or otherwise for the period 12.12.2017 to 11.10.2018 was not the subject matter of the said inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority wrongly conflated two distinct aspects, namely, disagreement and unauthorized absence absence. These issues are presently sub judice in other pending O.As., namely O.A. No. 317/2024 and O.A. No. 2126/2025 2126/2025. The present O.As.
are, therefore, being adjudicated without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either side in the said cases. The applicant, cant, having superannuated on 31.07.2023 from the post of Joint Director, Director, had no disciplinary proceedings pending against her at the time of retirement. The order dated 26.06.2023 has already been challenged in O.A. No. 317/2024.. Although a chargesheet was subsequently issued on 27.02.2025, 27.02.2025, the period of four years from her superannuation does not create any bar to fixation of 27 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 provisional pension or release of gratuity and other retiral dues. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) Division No. 1186/2012,, titled "Government of NCT of Delhi vs. S.K. Srivastava." This judgment supports the view that where no order is passed under Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules,, leave encashment cannot be withheld. Taking a an extreme illustration, even under Rule 35 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, Rules, superannuation pension is granted to an employee compulsorily retired from service. The final pension order(s), if any, may be passed after the disposal of O.A. No. 317/2024 and O.A. No.. 2126/2025 2126/2025, so as to safeguard the interests of the organization. 11.5 The applicant was compelled to run from pillar to post to ventilate her grievances arising out of the respondents' actions, which led to a series of litigations. The respondents cannot deny this merely on the deemed notion of forfeiture of service, especially when such forfeiture was effected without following due process of law. There was no impediment or embargo in granting pension, at least on a provisional basis, and releasing the a admissible amounts.
28Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 Since we are setting aside the order dated 07.07.2020, we find no impediment in granting reliefs in O.A. No. 2914 of 2023as as well.
12. CONCLUSION :
12.1. In view of the foregoing analysis and the detailed examination of the records, we find find that any observations made in any proceedings cannot be used as a tool take punitive action without following the Rule of Law in Statute. We therefore, hereby quash and set aside the office order dated 05.12.2018 and the letter dated 22.02.2019 issued by the respondents. The respondents are directed to decide the applicant's leave-cum-
regularization application dated 05.11.2018 within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12.2. We further quash and set aside the office order dated 07.07.2020 and direct the respondents to issue orders for the commutation of pension, sanction of gratuity, and release of provisional pension, along with all other retiral 29 Item No. 94 (C-3) O.A. Nos. 2212/2019 with O.A. No. 2914/2023 dues, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified fied copy of this order.
12.3. The applicant shall be entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral dues from the due date, i.e., 31.07.2023, until the actual date of payment, at the prevailing GPF rates.
12.4. Any further delay beyond the stipulated period shall carry additional interest at 12% per annum. 12.5. The O.A.s are disposed of in the aforementioned terms. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /as/