Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Kabir Hussain vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 61/14/2025
Reserved on 24.02.2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Jammu Bench, Jammu
Hearing through video conferencing
O.A. No. 61/14/2025
Pronounced on :- This the 11th day of March 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
1. Kabir Hussain, Age 77 years, S/o Mohd. Akbar, Ex-Civilian
Cook, 216 Transit Camp, C/o 56 AP, R/o Village & P.O. Kangra
Gulhotta, Tehsil Mendhar, District Poonch.
...Applicant
(Through Advocate: Mr. T M Khan)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of
India, New Delhi.
2. Directorate General of Movements/Mov. D. General Staff
Branch, Directorate General of Operational Logistics, Armed
Head Quarter, DHQ, P.O. New Delhi.
3. Additional Director General of Strat Movement/Mov D Dte Gen
Operational Logistics & SM, General Staff Branch Integrated HQ
of MoD (Army) New Delhi.
4. Commandant, 216 Transit Camp, C/o 56 APO.
...Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Raghu Mehta, Sr. C.G.S.C.)
ARUN
KUMAR
ARUN
2026.03.17
KUMAR
15:19:54+
05'30'
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 61/14/2025
ORDER
Per:- Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member Briefly stated the case of the applicant as projected in the Original Application (in short O.A.) is that he was serving as Civilian Cook at 216 Transit Camp C/o 56 APO in the year 1999 and on account of a false and frivolous case under FIR No. 276/1999 registered with the Police Station Chanakya Puri, New Delhi for offence under Section 3 of Official Secrets Act and Section 120-B of IPC, he was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 03.01.2001 in terms of Clause 1 of the Article 310 of Constitution of India, without final outcome of the trial in the said FIR and was denied pensionary benefits and compassionate allowances.
2. It is averred that the impugned order has been passed in an arbitrary manner and in violation of principles of natural justice, without holding an inquiry. The applicant after trial in the aforesaid FIR was acquitted of the charges framed against him vide judgement dated 28.01.2004 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi and respondents had initiated the process of his reinstatement in service as is evident from communication No. 2356/CF/Kabir/04/Civs dated 25.05.2004, but nothing was done despite the judgement of acquittal having attained finality. That due to inaction of the respondents to reinstate him, applicant has filed SWP No. 78 of 2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.12.2015 with liberty to approach the appropriate authority for compassionate pension only. ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.17 KUMAR 15:19:54+ 05'30' :: 3 :: O.A. No. 61/14/2025
3. It is further averred that the representation made by the applicant seeking compassionate pension, did not invoke any response from the respondents, which led the applicant to file O.A. No. 622 of 2019 before the Armed Forces Tribunal (in short AFT), Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu, which was disposed vide order dated 26.09.2024 on the ground that AFT has no jurisdiction to deal with the O.A. filed by the applicant, who was a Civilian Cook serving under the army. The applicant has filed R.A. No. 12 of 2024 seeking a review of the order dated 26.09.2024 which was disposed of on 12.11.2024 with the observation that applicant has the right to avail appropriate remedy under law.
4. It is further averred that in the representations dated 12.02.2016 and 05.04.2019 filed by the applicant in pursuance of order dated 04.12.2015 of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in aforesaid SWP, the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 was passed by the respondents, whereby the representation dated 05.04.2019 of the applicant was rejected on the ground that Article 310 (1) of the Constitution does not contain any provision for reviewing the dismissal order of the applicant and for the said reason the prayer of the applicant for seeking compassionate pension was found not maintainable.
5. It is submitted that under these circumstances, the instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.17 KUMAR 15:19:54+ 05'30' :: 4 :: O.A. No. 61/14/2025 "i) Quashment of Order dated 03.01.2001, bearing No. 13014/5/2000-D (Vig) passed by Respondent No. 1 Secretary/Ministry of Defence where under the applicant was dismissed from service as a Civil Cook at 216, Transit Camp, Delhi Headquarters (Hqrs) on account of applicant's innocent, illegal and malafide involvement in a baseless and frivolous criminal case, without affording even a single opportunity of being heard to the applicant.
The order being illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide and against the principle of natural justice is liable to be quashed. Prayer for quashment to the same in the interest of justice.
ii) Directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service from the date, he was illegally dismissed from service on 03.01.2001 when the applicant was illegally involved in the false and baseless case in the name of security of State on basis of fabricated baseless and flimsy and false allegations in which the applicant was acquitted respectfully by Delhi Sessions Court vide his Judgement dated 28.01.2004 and to give the applicant all the consequential benefits including his salary and all the retiral benefits w.e.f. the date of his illegal dismissal till the date of his retirement from service.
iii) Quashment of Order dated 21.02.2024, issued by respondent No. 3 i.e. Additional Director General of Strat Movement/Mov D Dte Gen Operational Logistics & SM General Staff Branch Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) New Delhi-110011, whereunder the representation of the applicant made pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 04.12.2015 passed in SWP No. 78 of 2005 titled Kabir Hussain Vs. Union of India & Ors has been rejected illegally, the rejected order impugned dated 21.02.2024 is unconstitutional nullified and arbitrary derogatory and violation of constitution and fundamental right of applicant against law, facts and circumstances of the case.
iv) Directing the respondents to release all the retrial and pensionary benefits in favour of applicant from the date of his retirement as per pension rules relevant on the subject alongwith interest.
v) Directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant along with all back wages consequent service monetary benefits including pension on the basis of service rendered by the applicants in the eventuality of his reinstatement. ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.17 KUMAR 15:19:54+ 05'30' :: 5 :: O.A. No. 61/14/2025
vi) With any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case be filed in favour of the applicant as against the respondents.
6. The reply to the O.A. was filed by the respondents in which it has been stated that the applicant was transferred to Headquarters Centre for Automated Military Survey (CAMS) Delhi, a specialized unit which deals with publication of military maps for the armed forces and thereafter, was posted to 216 Transit Camp w.e.f. 01.05.1998. The applicant was arrested on 10.08.1999 on the disclosure of one Mr. Dharamveer, who was also working in CAMS and was arrested with an envelope containing five maps marked 'restricted for use of defence forces only' on the night of 27.07.1999, while attempting to pass the documents to one Mohd Sarfar, an official of Pakistan High Commission, New Delhi. The applicant was suspended on the same day and in the course of investigation, it was established that the applicant was collecting/obtaining and communicating sensitive defence documents/information to Pakistan Intelligence Officials at Pakistan High Commission, New Delhi.
7. It is further stated that during the pendency of the trial in FIR No. 276/1999, the applicant was dismissed from service with immediate effect in the interest of the security of the state vide impugned order dated 03.01.2001 without any entitlement to pensionary benefits and compassionate allowance, but was paid certain amounts as per his entitlement viz; CGEIS, GPF Fund, Subsistence allowance etc. The factum of the applicant having been ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.17 KUMAR 15:19:54+ 05'30' :: 6 :: O.A. No. 61/14/2025 acquitted by the Trial Court in the aforesaid FIR was admitted, though as per the investigation, it was found that the applicant has, in fact, introduced Dharamveer in the first place to Mohd Safdar and Fayaz Khan, both Pakistan Intelligence Officials. It is also stated that O.A. is not maintainable in terms of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 being barred by law of limitation. Finally, it has been prayed that the O.A. be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that procedure envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution of India has not been complied, while dismissing the applicant from service in terms of the impugned order dated 03.01.2001, whereby the applicant has also been denied pensionary benefits and compassionate allowances, besides the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 passed on the representation of the applicant is also illegal.
9. It is further contended by the learned counsel that impugned order dated 03.01.2001 was passed during the investigation of case FIR No. 276 of 1999 of Police Station Chanakyapuri, New Delhi for the commission of offence under Section 3/9 of Official Secrets Act read with Section 120-B and 380/411 of IPC and the trial of the case titled State Vs. Dharamveer etc., culminated in acquittal of applicant by the Court of learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Delhi and therefore, in the absence of any misconduct, the impugned orders are not sustainable under law.
ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.17 KUMAR 15:19:54+ 05'30' :: 7 :: O.A. No. 61/14/2025
10. On the other hand, learned Sr. C.G.S.C. appearing for the respondents has met the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant by urging that there were serious allegations against the applicant, who was involved in espionage activities with some personnels of enemy country, detrimental for the security of the State and taking into consideration those serious allegations, the applicant was dismissed from service, for the maintenance of public order. It is further submitted by learned Sr. C.G.S.C. that impugned order dated 03.01.2001 was passed in exercise of executive powers, in terms of Clause I of the Article 310 of the Constitution, which shows that a satisfaction has been recorded by the competent authority in terms of clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2), that in the interest of security of the State, there is no need to hold departmental inquiry against the applicant, in view of the activities in which the applicant was involved. It is also submitted by the learned Sr. C.G.S.C. that SWP No. 78 of 2005 filed earlier by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble High Court of J&K vide order dated 04.12.2005 and liberty was granted to the applicant to approach the appropriate authority for compassionate pension only, however, factum of filing of WP (C) No. 1753 of 2019 again by the applicant, in the Hon'ble High Court has not been disclosed in the O.A. The representation of applicant dated 05.04.2019 was only for grant of compassionate pension, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 21.02.2024. Further, as per learned Sr. C.G.S.C. the applicant has been acquitted after giving him benefit of doubt in the judgement ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.17 KUMAR 15:19:54+ 05'30' :: 8 :: O.A. No. 61/14/2025 dated 28.01.2004 of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and therefore, impugned orders are justified and are not required to be interfered.
11. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
12. It may be stated at the outset that as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in SWP No. 78 of 2005 dated 04.12.2015, the applicant, at the time of withdrawal of the said Writ Petition was granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority for compassionate pension only. The record shows that the applicant has filed representation dated 12.02.2016 for his reinstatement and release of pensionary benefits followed by another representation dated 05.04.2019 for grant of compassionate appointment and he has also filed O.A. No. 622 of 2019 before AFT Bench Srinagar, despite the fact that T.A. 61/8744/2020 was already pending before this Tribunal and ultimately, aforesaid O.A. was disposed of by the AFT on 13.03.2023 with the direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation dated 05.04.2019 made by the applicant. The Review Application was allowed by the AFT vide order dated 26.09.2024 on an application filed by the Union of India and the O.A. was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the applicant being a Civilian Cook was not subject to the Army Act. Further vide order dated 12.11.2024, Review Application filed by the applicant seeking review of the order dated 26.09.2024 was dismissed by the AFT, with the observation that even liberty ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.17 KUMAR 15:19:54+ 05'30' :: 9 :: O.A. No. 61/14/2025 sought by the applicant cannot be granted and the applicant always has a right to avail appropriate remedy available under law.
13. The applicant in this O.A. has thrown challenge to his dismissal order dated 03.01.2001 and also to order dated 21.02.2024, whereby the compassionate pension was denied to him. From a bare reading of order dated 04.12.2015 of the Hon'ble High Court, it becomes clear that applicant on its own has withdrawn SWP No. 78 of 2005 and sought liberty to approach the appropriate authority for compassionate pension only, which was granted to him. The applicant knowing fully well that he has no cause to assail impugned order dated 03.01.2001, has filed representation dated 05.04.2019 for grant of compassionate pension only which was dismissed in terms of impugned order dated 21.02.2024. Therefore, it becomes clear that applicant knowingly by his own conduct has expressly waived his right to seek quashment of impugned order dated 03.01.2001, as such, he would be estopped from claiming relief (i), (ii) and (v) as sought in the O.A.
14. Even otherwise, the impugned order of dismissal of applicant from service dispensing with inquiry, in the interest of security of the State has attained finality in view of clause (3) of Article 311 of the Constitution. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been wrongfully denied the compassionate pension, it transpires that claim of the applicant has been rejected in terms of impugned order dated 21.02.2024 on the ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.17 KUMAR 15:19:54+ 05'30' :: 10 :: O.A. No. 61/14/2025 ground that Article 310 (1) of Constitution of India does not contain any provision regarding review of dismissal order of applicant and for said reason prayer of applicant seeking compassionate pension vide representation of applicant dated 05.04.2019, was found not maintainable.
15. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that after the acquittal of applicant in the aforesaid FIR, and the judgement having attained finality, the respondents were not justified in rejecting the claim of the applicant for compassionate pension.
16. From a careful perusal of the judgement rendered by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi in the aforesaid FIR, it transpires that main accused Dharamveer was held guilty under Section 380 read with Section 120 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, however, applicant was extended benefit of doubt in the same judgement and was acquitted under Section 3 of the Officials Act and Section 120-B of the IPC. In other words, the acquittal of the applicant was not clean or honourable, but was due to some technical flaws in the case. This form of acquittal merely signifies the prosecution did not meet the high standard of proof with regard to the involvement of the applicant. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 for grant of compassionate pension to the applicant does not suffer from any illegality in the light of reasons mentioned therein.
17. In so far as the, contention of learned Sr. C.G.S.C. that O.A. is hit by provisions of limitation, as the same has been filed beyond the ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.17 KUMAR 15:19:54+ 05'30' :: 11 :: O.A. No. 61/14/2025 limitation period provided in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it appears that impugned order dated 21.02.2024 has been passed on the basis of representation dated 05.04.2019 of the applicant in pursuance of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir order dated 04.12.2015 in SWP No. 78 of 2005, therefore, the present O.A. which was filed on 17.01.2025, is within limitation period as provided under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
18. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the O.A. filed by the applicant is dismissed.
19. No order as to costs.
(Pragya Sahay Saksena) (Sanjeev Gupta) Administrative Member Judicial Member Arun...
ARUN KUMAR ARUN 2026.03.17 KUMAR 15:19:54+ 05'30'