Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Gautam Talukdar vs Expenditure on 16 October, 2025
1
OA No.1774/2024
Item No.82/C-4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1774/2024
Reserved on : 16.09.2025
Pronounced on : 16.10.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Dr. Gautam Talukdar,
(Retd. CCA), Gp.'A',
S/o Late Sh. B.C. Talukdar,
Aged 60 years,
Email: [email protected] ; # 9810498361
R/o: D-1/E 38, CGO Appartments, Bapu Dham,
San Mertin Marg, Chankya puri, New Delhi-1 10021
Retired as Chief Controller of Accounts,
M/o Social Justice & Empowerment,
Room No.211-D Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-11 0001
.. Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. D.P. Sharma)
Versus
Union of India through,
1. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
Email: [email protected]
2. The Controller General of Accounts,
Department of Expenditure,
M/o Finance,
Mahalekha Niyantrak Bhawan,
GPO Complex, Block-E,
Aviation Colony, INA Colony,
New Delhi-110023
Email: [email protected]
3. The Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts,
Ministry of Education, Govt. of India,
Room No. 515, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
2
OA No.1774/2024
Item No.82/C-4
New Delhi-110001
Email: [email protected]
4. The Pay & Accounts Officer,
Department of Social Justice & Empowerment,
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment,
Room No.242, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-1 10001
Email: [email protected]
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R.K. Jain)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A) The present Original Application (O.A.) has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):
(i) Allow this Original Application.
(ii) Set aside/quash the impugned Office Order PAO/ SJE/ADMN/2023-24/1389-1391 dated 12.03.2024 < (Annexure-A1) impugned Office Order No. PAO/ SJE/ADMN/2023-24/1427-1429 dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure-A1) issued by respondent no.4, being illegal, unconstitutional, violative of relevant provisions & non-est in the eyes of law.
(iii) Pass an order directing respondent to issue regular pension to the applicant from the date following the date of his retirement with all admissible pensionary benefits.
(iv) Issue necessary direction to respondent no.4 to release the withheld payments on account of Pension, DCRG, CVP, Leave Encashment, GPF & CGEGIS claims etc. payable to applicant along with interest for the delayed period.
(v) Issue further directions to respondents to withdraw the undelivered Charge Sheet stated to have been issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for being void & incompatible.3 OA No.1774/2024
Item No.82/C-4
(vi) Pass any other order/direction as may be deemed just & proper in the light of facts & circumstances of the case as submitted herein above."
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant are:
2.1 The applicant is a senior Group 'A' Officer borne on the Indian Civil Accounts Service (ICAS) cadre. He superannuated on 29.02.2024 as Chief Controller of Accounts (CCA) from the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment. He had been on Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) from 19.02.2024 to 23.02.2024 and had proceeded to Guwahati on 16.02.2024 (night) for shifting his domestic goods in the wake of his retirement on 29.02.2024.
Thereafter, being sick, he applied for extension of Leave from 24.02.2024 to 29.02.2024. He was admitted to Guwahati Medical College & Hospital for treatment in Emergency on 29.02.2024 and discharged on 04.03.2024. He returned back to Delhi on 05.03.2024 (night).
2.2 The applicant requested to respondent No.3 for release of his retiral dues viz. Pension, Commuted Value of Pension, Gratuity, CGEGIS accumulations, Leave Encashment and GPF balance vide his letter dated 11.03.2024. However, he was informed by respondent No.4 vide impugned Office Order dated 12.03.2024 that a Charge-Sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been issued by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 22.02.2024. 4 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 2.3 It is contended by the applicant that the said Charge-Sheet has neither been delivered nor caused to have been delivered to him in terms of Rule 14(4)(a) and Rule 30 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, nor has been received by him till date of his retirement. 2.4 The applicant submitted his reply to respondent No.4 that he has not received any such Charge-Sheet by the date of retirement, i.e. 29.02.2024, and there was no intimation on account of pending Vigilance Clearance vide letter dated 14.03.2024. 2.5 The applicant was issued provisional Pension Payment Order (PPO) vide impugned Office Order dated 14.03.2024. 2.6 He has also raised objection to the inflated recovery of Rs.34,63,582/- as against the earlier one not more than Rs.14 lakh, as intimated by the respondent No.2, and made a representation to the respondent No.1 in this regard. He has also requested for sanction of his regular pension with other retiral benefits withheld by the respondents.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant proceeded on 5 days Earned Leave w.e.f. 19.02.2024 to 23.02.2024, without any prior approval. The Leave application was received on 16.02.2024 in the office after he proceeded on leave on 16.02.2024 (Night). The comments of the DEO, PAO, SJ&E stated that "with strict instructions to the applicant, that when he go away submit his leave application to Pr. 5 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 CCA office". Subsequently, he submitted revised leave application on 20.02.2024 through WhatsApp to PA to CCA, which was forwarded to CCA on 20.02.2024 to O/o PR. CCA. His final application was received on 23.02.2024 and denial of the same was issued vide order dated 29.02.2024.
3.1 The Department of Expenditure (DoE) vide OM dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure R-1) had conveyed that the Finance Minister being the Disciplinary Authority on behalf of the President has approved the Charge Sheet for major penalty proceeding against the applicant under the provisions of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and directed the Office of CGA to immediately issue the Charge sheet. Accordingly, Office of CGA vide letter dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure R-2) had forwarded a sealed envelope containing the Memorandum alongwith Charge Sheet and a copy of CVC's First Stage Advice in respect of the applicant to the Respondent No.3 with a request to ensure the delivery of the same to him. 3.2 In response thereto, Pr.CCA, M/o Education intimated that vide letter dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure R-3), they had forwarded the ibid Charge Sheet to the applicant by hand through officials of his office. The officials reached at his residence on 23.02.2024 at 07:30 P.M. However, the person available at his residence refused to receive the documents by stating that the applicant is not present at home. On 24.02.2024 at 02:00 P.M., the officials again tried to 6 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 deliver the documents at his residence, but the door was locked/not opened.
3.3 Subsequently, Office of the CGA had sent the said documents by Speed Post on 26.02.2024 at his residential addresses indicated in his pension papers as well as at his local residence. The Speed Post sent at his Tripura address had been received back undelivered, with the remarks dated 04.03.2024 "Item Returned Refused" and sent at his local address in Delhi through Registered AD dated 27.02.2024 had also been received back undelivered with the remarks "Baar baar jaane par tala band milta hai" (Annexure R-4). 3.4 On 27.02.2024, the documents were pasted at the door of the residence of the applicant, as well as at the Office Notice Board. The copies of the reports along with mobile pictures submitted by the Team have also been annexed as Annexure R-5. The Charge-Sheet was also pasted on the Notice Board of the office of Pr.CCA, M/o Education on 27.02.2024. The copy of Charge-Sheet along with annexures and CVC First State Advice dated 08.02.2024 were sent through e-mail ID on 26.02.2024 at 1:46 pm and also forwarded at his alternate email address.
3.5 In view of above, it is evident that the applicant deliberately left the Headquarter unauthorizedly and deserted the post without permission/sanction of leave intentionally to evade the official communications. The due course of law has been adhered to, as such 7 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 the charge sheet is deemed to have been delivered to the officer in terms of Para 7.17.2 of CVC Manual, 2021 (Annexure R-7), which states as under:
"If the Government servant evades acceptance of the articles of charge and / or refuses to accept the registered cover containing the articles of charge, the articles of charges will be deemed to have been duly delivered to him as refusal of a registered letter normally tantamount to proper service of its contents."
Thus, the statement of non-receipt of Charge sheet by the applicant is not tenable.
3.6 The learned counsel also submitted that grant of provisional pension is in accordance with Rule 8 (3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 and, in such case, the question of authorization of commuted value of pension and DCRG does not arise. Leave Encashment has been withheld in accordance with Rule 39 (3) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. However, the amount of final GPF and CGEGIS were released on 12.03.2024 and 10.04.2024.
3.7 It is also pointed out that based on receipt of the complaint dated 14.07.2022, a Special Audit for the tenure of the applicant as CCA, M/o Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution was conducted by the IDA, O/o CGA to verify the veracity of the complaint of fraudulent payments against the applicant. As per the report dated 21.12.2022, as many as 12 financial irregularities were committed by the applicant which resulted in recoveries amounting to Rs.34,63,582/- from him. Thereafter, Preliminary Enquiry Officer 8 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 (PEO) was appointed and while the PE was underway, notice dated 15.06.2023 was served by the PE Officer to furnish his response latest by 26.06.2023, but the applicant submitted a notice for voluntary retirement under FR 56 (k) on 26.06.2023. His notice for voluntary retirement was rejected by the Competent Authority vide ID Note dated 22.09.2023. Challenging the same, the applicant filed O.A. No. 3004/2023 which was dismissed by this Tribunal holding that the action of the respondents in rejecting the voluntary retirement before the expiry of three months' notice period was legitimate and the O.A. lacks merit.
4. In rejoinder to the averments putforth by the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Charge Sheet stated to have been issued on 22.02.2024 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for major penalty, i.e. just a few days ahead of the superannuation of the applicant, without invoking specific provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021), has neither been served to the applicant nor received by him by the date of his superannuation on 29.02.2024. As such, the same turns to be invalid and infructuous and warrants no cognizance thereto in issuing provisional PPO and withholding of other terminal dues payable to the applicant. In support of his contention, he has placed heavy reliance on the decision rendered on 30.07.1998 by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & 9 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 Ors. vs Dinanath Shantaram Karekar & Ors., wherein it has been observed as under:
"......Where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a charge-sheet, its actual service is essential as the person to whom the charge-sheet is issued is required to submit his reply and, thereafter, to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. So also, when the show-cause notice is issued, the employee is called upon to submit his reply to the action proposed to be taken against him. Since in both the situations, the employee is given an opportunity to submit his reply, the theory of "Communication" cannot be invoked and "Actual Service" must be proved and established. It has already been found that neither the charge-sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon the original respondent, Dinanath Shantaram Karekar. consequently, the entire proceedings were vitiated."
5. The respondents have also filed a surjoinder/additional affidavit stating that the applicant firstly applied for 5 days' Earned Leave for domestic affairs and later, after proceeding on leave, changed the nature of leave as Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) and extended the leave upto 29.02.2024, i.e. till his retirement. As such, the Competent Authority had refused to sanction the LPR vide order dated 29.02.2024, and as already submitted, as per Rule 7(1) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. As per Rule 7 (2) of ibid Rules, the applicant should have proceeded on leave after due approval by the Competent Authority. Further, the applicant being a Group 'A' office should abide by the Rules and set an example for the subordinates. Leaving headquarters and absence without sanction of leave applied is in violation of the provisions of the DoPT OM No.11013/7/04- Estt.(A) dated 18.05.1994. He also added that the applicant 10 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 deliberately left the Headquarter unauthorizedly without permission/sanction of leave intentionally to evade the official communications.
5.1 It is also stated that the denial of retiral benefits and grant of provisional pension is well within the relevant CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. The Disciplinary Authority had resorted to all the ways and means of communication/delivery of Memorandum dated 22.02.2024 containing Charge-Sheet and copy of CVC's First Stage Advice through authorized officials of the O/o Pr.CCA, M/o Education twice on 23.02.2024 and 24.02.2024, Speed Post at his address at Guwahati and Tripura, pasting of the same at the Office Notice Board as well as at his official residence on 27.02.2024, through e-mail at both of his e-mails on 26.02.2024 and also through Registered AD at his residence at Delhi on 27.02.2024. As such, as per the stipulations made under para 7.17.2 of the CVC Manual as well as para 2 of the DG, P&T Order below Rule 30 are sufficient to conclude that the article of charge will be deemed to have been duly delivered to the applicant. Therefore, the charge-sheet cannot be termed as infructuous and non- considerable, as contended by the applicant and, the decision in Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra) is not applicable in the instant case.
11OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4
6. However, the learned counsel for the applicant reiterated that the instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. He also placed reliance on the following case laws:
(i) C. Malik vs Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) in O.A. No. 4650/2015 dated 27.10.2017, where the charge-sheet communicated/issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on the day of superannuation has been quashed with all consequential benefits.
(ii) Judgment dated 04.01.2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.51898/2015 {S-CAT} in the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs Sri Sabu Joseph, where the Charge Sheet issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 served at 23:25 hours on 31.05.2013, the day of retirement of the applicant therein, has been set aside with all consequential benefits.
(iii) Judgment dated 18.10.2023 of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in WP (C) No.1074/2023 in the matter of Sri Vinay Kumar Singh vs Union of India & Ors., whereto, theory of 'communication' over & above the theory of 'Actual Delivery of the impugned document to the delinquent officer has been totally discarded on account of denial of opportunity to him for submission of his defence statement being against the Principle of Natural Justice.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and also perused the pleadings/written synopsis/judgments placed 12 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 on record as well as the original record produced by the respondents.
8. The central issue revolves around the procedural validity of the charge-sheet issued against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for major penalty, and whether it was effectively communicated to him prior to his superannuation. The applicant contends that the charge-sheet, issued on 22.02.2024, was neither delivered nor served upon him by the date of his retirement on 29.02.2024. He heavily relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra) to argue that the non- service of the charge-sheet renders the disciplinary proceedings invalid, which emphasized the necessity of actual service of the charge-sheet on the employee, especially when it was returned unserved by postal authorities.
9. However, on a careful perusal of the record, it reveals that the respondents made several attempts to deliver the charge-sheet and CVC's First Stage Advice through various means, including physical delivery by their officials, speed posts sent at his local as well as permanent addresses, and even pasting the charge-sheet at his residence as well as Notice Board of the office and also sent through e-mails. The respondents have highlighted the provisions of the CVC Manual (2021), which deems the charge-sheet served if the employee refuses to accept it or avoids receipt. The respondents 13 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 have also pointed out the fact that the applicant was on unauthorized leave and absent from headquarters without proper sanction of leave and his non-availability was deliberate as well as the findings from a Special Audit that highlighted financial irregularities during his tenure. These factors justify the withholding of his retiral dues, including pension and gratuity, under the relevant rules.
10. On going through the decision in Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra) heavily relied upon by the applicant, we find that there is a fine distinction between the factual matrix of the present case to that of Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra), which can also be noticed by the fact that the decision rendered in Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra) was particularly in light of the facts noted below:
"The charge sheet which was sent to the respondent was returned with the postal endorsement "not found". This indicates that the charge sheet was not tendered to him even by the postal authorities. A document sent by registered post can be treated to have been served only when it is established that it was tendered to the addressee. Where the addressee was not available even to the postal authorities, and the registered cover was returned to the sender with the endorsement "not found", it cannot be legally treated to have been served. The appellant should have made further efforts to serve the charge sheet on the respondent. Single effort, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be treated as sufficient. That being so, the very initiation of the departmental proceedings was bad. It was ex-parte even from the stage of charge sheet which, at no stage, was served upon the respondent. So far as the service of show cause notice is concerned, it also cannot be treated to have been served. Service of this notice was sought to be effected on the respondent by publication in a newspaper without making any earlier effort to serve him personally by tendering the show cause notice either through the office peon or by registered post. There is nothing on record to indicate that the newspaper in 14 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 which the show-cause notice was published was a popular newspaper which as expected to be read by the public in general or that it had wide circulation in the area or locality where the respondent lived. The show-cause notice cannot, therefore, in these circumstances, be held to have been served on the respondent. In any case, since the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings was bad for the reason that the charge sheet was not served, all subsequent steps and stages, including the issuance of the show-cause notice would be bad".
11. However, in the present case, a reference can be drawn to the decision rendered in WP(C) No. 1795/2016 in the case of R.S. Misra vs Union of India & Ors., wherein after considering a catena of decisions including the decision in Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has opined as under:
"24. Having regard to the above, the Constitution Bench in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 has also held that communication would not necessarily be actual service but once an order has been sent out of the jurisdiction of the concerned authority it would amount to communication. The aforesaid finding has been reiterated by the Apex Court in D.D.A. v. H.C. Khurana, 1993 SCc (L&S) 736.
25. A decision is an authority for what it holds in law. The ratio decidendi of a Constitution Bench decision or any decision having a binding precedent value under Article 141 of the Constitution of India is the law discerned and not what could be gathered from the judgment. In this view of the matter though publication and communication are the, conditions precedent for effectiveness of an order, yet the aspect of communication has not been gone into by the Constitution Bench in Amar Singh (supra). This has been dealt with and a ratio decidendi arrived at in S, Pratap Singh (supra) makes it no more res integra that if an order leaves the domain and goes out of the control of the competent authority, where there are no prospects of its being altered or being interfered in any manner, it amounts to communication whether actual service is made or not. The aforesaid dicta would not only hold good for the chargesheet but also for an order of dismissal as well. In such view of the matter, we find from the record that once the order of dismissal has been passed against applicant it was delivered through messenger but as he 15 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 was not found on 24.1.2006 a speed post was sent on 24.1.2006 and in the matter of presumption three days is attributed to the speed post to reach the destination within Delhi and it is deemed to have been served upon applicant on 27.1.2006, i.e., much before his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2006. In our considered view we have no hesitation to rule that the order of dismissal dated 24.1.2006 was communicated to applicant much before his date of superannuation on 31.1.2006. As such, the plea raised by Shri G.D. Gupta cannot be countenanced in law. "
6. The aforesaid paragraph also alludes to relevant factual aspects; that the order dated 24.1.2006 was sent through a special messenger but could not be delivered on the petitioner as he could not be found. The order was thereafter sent by speed post on 24.1.2006. In normal course it should have been served on 27.1.2006, i.e., before the respondent's superannuation on 31.1.2006. The aforesaid findings are clearly against the petitioner.
7. The petitioner had challenged the finding of the Tribunal in order dated 24th July, 2007 in WP(C) No.3902/2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 10th July, 2009. The petitioner had thereafter preferred a Review Petition before the High Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 23rd August, 2009. The petitioner had thereafter filed a Special Leave Petition (C) against these two orders passed by the High Court but the same was dismissed on 12.3.2010."
12. The aforesaid decision was further assailed in SLP vide Diary No. 10850/2017, which was also dismissed by the Apex Court by Order dated 04.10.2017 as under:
"Delay condoned.
We do not find any reason to entertain these Special Leave Petitions, which are, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of."
13. In a nutshell, in the instant case which hinges on the issue of whether the charge-sheet was properly served on the applicant before his retirement, though the judgments in Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra) and other case laws highlighted the 16 OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4 critical need for actual service. However, there is a clear distinction between the facts in Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra) as in that case, the charge-sheet was returned unserved with a postal endorsement; whereas in the instant case, the charge-sheet was attempted to be delivered through a variety of methods, including at applicant's local as well as permanent residence and also pasted at the Notice Board of the office, as well as through electronic means i.e. at his both e-mails, which has not been rebutted by the applicant.
14. Given these considerations, as the respondents have made reasonable efforts to serve the charge-sheet following the due process of law, the applicant's deliberate non-availability to evade receipt cannot diminish the efficacy of those efforts. Furthermore, in light of the provisions of the CVC Manual and the established procedures regarding deemed delivery, the legal validity of the Charge-Sheet cannot be dismissed. We are also fortified in our view by the legal precedents cited in R.S. Misra (supra) which clarify that once an order has been sent beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned authority, it can be deemed communicated, even if actual service is not possible. Consequently, the applicant's claim of non- receipt of the charge-sheet and its alleged invalidity is not substantiated.
17OA No.1774/2024 Item No.82/C-4
15. It is also noteworthy that there has been no denial of the fact that the charge-sheet was served, and it has been appropriately responded to. The applicant has also actively participated in the disciplinary proceedings, which are now at an advanced stage. Moreover, the withholding of the applicant's retiral dues appears to be in accordance with the relevant Pension and Disciplinary Rules, given the ongoing departmental proceedings against him.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the ongoing disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. However, as the applicant has retired on 29.02.2024, we are sanguine that the respondents shall conclude all the disciplinary proceedings pending against the applicant and also pass final orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of three months.
17. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
18. The original record shall be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents with appropriate endorsement.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/