Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Negi vs M/O Home Affairs on 17 March, 2026
1 O.A No. 2930/2021
Item 44 (C-2)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2930/2021
Reserved on : 18.02.2026
Pronounced on : 17.03.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Anil Negi, former ACIO-II/G,
Intelligence Bureau (MHA) (Group-A)
S/o Shri Sukti Lal Negi, Age About 33 years
Dreamland Guest House,
House No. 10, Jogiwara Road,
Mcleod Ganj, Dharamshala Cantt,
District Kangra (H.P.)- 176219, ......Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Suresh Sharma)
Vs.
1. Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. The Director, Intelligence Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Intelligence Bureau
35, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi-110021.
3. Smt. Sapna Tiwari, the then JD/ SIB/Bengaluru
And Now Additional Director (AX)
Intelligence Bureau No.08 (Old No.25), Infantry Road,
Bangalore-560001
4. Shri Alex Fillipe, Assistant Director (Retd)
Puthethu House, Keekozhoor Post
Ranny, Pathanam Thitta District, Kerala-689672
5. Shri Hemant Kumar Singh, DCIO
North Block, Control room IB Hqrs, New Delhi
6. Shri R. K. Gupta, Joint Deputy Director/E
Intelligence Bureau, 35, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi-110021
7. Shri Badri Narayan Meena
Intelligence Bureau
35, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi-110021. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Gyanendra Singh)
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30'
2 O.A No. 2930/2021
Item 44 (C-2)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i) To call for all the records of the case from the Respondents pertaining to the events/ incidents mentioned in the O.A. leading to issue of impugned dismissal Order No.1/C-8/2020 (20)-258 Dated 03.02.2021.
(ii) To quash the impugned dismissalOrderNo.1/C-8/2020 (20)-
258 Dated 03.02.2021 being arbitrary, illegal and thus non est and order reinstatement of the applicant with all consequential benefits.
(iii) To quash the impugned suspension Orders No.4/Est/2020(1)- 342 dated 24.01.2020, dated 23.04.2020,20.07.2020 and 16.10.2020 being arbitrary, illegal and thus non est with all consequential benefits.
(iv) To quash the entire proceedings under Clause(c) to the second proviso under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India because of irregularities and illegalities committed during the proceedings.
(v) To pass orders for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.3 to 7 for misconduct as per O.M. No. 11013/2/2004-Estt.(A) dated 16.02.2004, given as Decision No.9 under Swamy's CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
(vi) To allow the OA with cost.
(vii) To pass any other orders may also be passed as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that the applicant was recruited by the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, through campus recruitment as ACIO-II/G (Executive) on 07.07.2014. He joined SIB Bengaluru on 24.02.2015 and was subsequently transferred to Kushalnagar Unit as Unit In-charge on 07.03.2015. During his tenure, the applicant performed his duties with distinction, secured first MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 3 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2) rank during training, received several certificates of appreciation and awards, successfully completed probation and was confirmed as ACIO-I/G. Despite his good service record the Respondent No.3, the then Joint Director showed her displeasure with him and some other officials. During the period from 26.11.2019 to 28.11.2019 the applicant was assigned duty to cover the event of visit of the American Ambassador to the Tibetan Settlement at Kushalnagar. He submitted his report on 28.11.2019. However, the applicant was taken by officers of SIB Bengaluru for inquiry/interrogation under the verbal directions of the respondent No.3 and upon interrogation, the team from the headquarters reportedly did not find anything incriminating against the applicant and recorded that he was innocent. Subsequently, on 09.12.2019 his transfer orders were issued transferring him to Bengaluru with retrospective effect from 02.12.2019, though he actually joined SIB Bengaluru on 09.12.2019. Thereafter, efforts were allegedly made by certain officers to compel the applicant to resign from service, which he refused. Moreover, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.01.2020 and the suspension continued through subsequent extensions dated 23.04.2020, 20.07.2020 and 16.10.2020, resulting in a total suspension period of 375 days, without revising the subsistence allowance after the first 90 days and without initiation of any disciplinary proceedings. Aggrieved by the prolonged suspension without issuance of any charge-sheet, the applicant submitted a representation dated 26.12.2020 to the Addl. Deputy Director, SIB Bengaluru, which remained unanswered. Subsequently, the respondents dismissed the applicant from service vide order dated 03.02.2021 which was served upon him on MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 4 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2) 09.02.2021, without holding any departmental inquiry and without invoking the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the said action of the respondents by submitting a representation/appeal dated 04.03.2021 for consideration by the Appellate Authority. However, respondent No.6 rejected his representation/appeal vide order dated 08.04.2021, allegedly without placing the matter before the competent Appellate Authority. Being aggrieved by the impugned dismissal and rejection of his appeal, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking intervention of this Tribunal.
3. The counsel of the applicant argued assiduously on the following grounds :-
"A. It is a constitutional obligation on the Disciplinary Authority to record in writing the reason or reasons for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practical to hold the inquiry contemplated by Article 311(2). This has not been done in the instant case rendering the impugned dismissal order as both vold as well as unconstitutional-
B. The scope of judicial review where the action of a constitutional authority in exercise of its constitutional powers is complained of, has been considered by the Apex Court in various judgments. In Union of India v Tulsi Ram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398, wherein it was held as under:
"138. Where a government servant is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by applying clause (b) or an analogous provision of the service rules and he approaches either the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32, the court will interfere on grounds well established in law for the exercise of power of judicial review in matters where administrative discretion is exercised. It will consider whether clause (b) or an analogous provision in the service rules was properly applied or not. The finality given by clause (3) of Article 311 to the disciplinary' authority's 'decision that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the Inquiry is not binding upon the court. The court will also examine the charge of mala fides, if any made in the writ petition. In examining the relevance of the reasons, the court will consider the situation which according to the disciplinary authority made it come to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 5 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2) the inquiry. If the court finds that the reasons are irrelevant, then the recording of its satisfaction by the disciplinary authority would be an abuse of power conferred upon it by clause (b) and would take the case out of the purview of that clause and the impugned order of penalty would stand invalidated...."
C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the order of dismissal passed under clause of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India is justiciable and amenable to judicial review on the grounds of mala fides, irrelevant considerations, violation of constitutional/statutory provisions and based upon no material, though adequacy of material is not to be gone into.
D. It is no more res integra as it has been concluded by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sardari Lal v Union of India [(1971) 1 SCC 411]that in case of a Government servant being proceeded under sub-clause (c) of the second proviso to clause (2) of Article 311, it is the satisfaction of the President himself, and the Hon'ble President must record a satisfaction in respect to the inexpediency of holding an inquiry. Though such reasons are not required to be recorded in the order of dismissal or made public, recording of reasons is a must, and here the exercise of power of judicial review OA-1993/2016 becomes relevant. Unless the reasons are recorded, one cannot say whether such reasons are based upon relevant material or otherwise. In absence of recording of reasons, the order of dismissal is rendered illegal.
E. The dichotomy which has been specifically introduced between the authority mentioned in clause (b) and the President mentioned in clause (c) of the proviso cannot be without significance. The Constitution makers apparently felt that a matter in which the interest of the security of the State had to be considered should receive the personal attention of the President or the Head of the State and he should be himself satisfied that an inquiry under the substantive part of clause (2) of Article 311 was not expedient for the reasons stated in clause (c) of the proviso in the case of a particular servant.
F. There is no such consideration by the President is available for issuing the impugned order, and it is thus perverse, illegal and unwarranted and is passed in gross violation of the process of law and colourable exercise of power for extraneous reasons, as held in similar circumstances by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Rajiv Chaudhary vs Cabinet Secretariat in OA No.1993/2016on 22 March, 2018 Indian Kanoon http://indiankanoon.org/doc/53506259/ as there has not been even a whisper of a single instance of the applicant's conduct involving any act prejudicial to the security of the State, what to talk of satisfaction of the Hon'ble President towards non-feasibility of holding an inquiry because of that.
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 6 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2) G. The impugned order is mala fide and smacks of bias and malice on the part of the officials. (iv) The impugned orders are violative of principles of natural justice as held by this Hon'ble Tribunal in similar circumstances in the case of Rajiv Chaudhary VS Cabinet Secretariat in No. 1993/2016vide their Order dated 22 March, 2018 Indian Kanoon-
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/53506259/."
4. To buttress his claim, the counsel of the applicant relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1993/2016 in Rajiv Chaudhary vs. UOI dated 22.03.2018 which was allowed by this Tribunal. He also put reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. UOI & Anr. - Civil Appeal No. 1912/2015. Reliance has also been placed upon the instructions issued by the DoPT vide their OM dated 03.07.2015 to implement the same incorporated as GoI Decision No. 13 in Chapter titled Suspension-General Orders in Swamy's CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The counsel for the applicant raised various points in his OA which are quoted below :-
"4.16 The respondents are blatantly violating the law of the land as laid down as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 1912/2015, and the instructions issued by Government of India vide Department of Personnel and Training vide their O.M. No. 11012/17/2013-Estt. (A) dated 03.07.2015 to implement the same incorporated as Government of India Decision No.13 in Chapter titled Suspension- General Orders in Swamy's CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
4.19 The Constitutional provisions of Article 309/311 to deal with matters requiring exception from the procedure for holding enquiry as embodied in Rule 19 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 embrace a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend the charged official The above facts make it crystal clear that the impugned actions of the Respondents, particularly the Respondent No.3 disciplinary authority, smack of mala fide and adaptation of a method unknown to law in hottest of haste since there is not even a the mentioning of Rule 19 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 or any other provision thereof while issuing the impugned dismissal order. Such an approach has been decried by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of cases, including, inter alia, the case of Sayeedur Rehman v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (1973) (3) SCC
333) wherein Hon'ble Court observed as under:-
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 7 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2) "The omission of express requirement of fair hearing in the rules or other source of power claimed for reconsidering the order, dated April 22, 1960, is supplied by the rule of justice which is considered as an integral part of our judicial process which also governs quasi-judicial authorities when deciding controversial points affecting rights of parties."
4.20 That the need for compliance of the abovementioned provisions has been brought out succinctly by Hidyatullah, C.J. in Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. The State of Mysore (AIR 1972 SC 32) by observing about the need of compliance of certain requirements in a departmental enquiry as under:
".......at an enquiry facts have to be proved and the person proceeded against must have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to give his own version or explanation about the evidence on which he is charged and to lead his defence on this state of law."
4.22 That the above act of dismissing the applicant from service without even informing him about the details of the complaint or the complainant has led to blatant violation of the fundamental principle of natural justice denoted by the legal maxim audi alteram partem meaning no one should be condemned unheard, the importance of which has been highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following terms in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, [1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621], in the following words:
".........the right to be heard is an inherent one and can be claimed even when not granted by statutory provisions: It is well established that even where there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the rights of that individual, the duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action."
5. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicant and argued that the applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. He further submitted that the applicant joined the Intelligence Bureau on 07.07.2014 as ACIO-II/G through campus recruitment on account of his knowledge of Tibetan language. After training and initial attachment at Headquarters, he was posted to SIB Bengaluru and MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 8 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2) subsequently to Kushalnagar Unit as Post In-charge. During his posting at Kushalnagar he was found involved in several adverse activities, including violation of departmental security guidelines, lack of discipline and conduct compromising the security of the unit. Considering the sensitive nature of the organization and the duties entrusted to the applicant, his conduct was viewed seriously as it created potential security implications for the organization and the security of the State. In view of the adverse inputs received regarding his activities, the applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 24.01.2020. His suspension was periodically reviewed by the competent Review Committee in accordance with the applicable rules and was extended from time to time. Considering the gravity and sensitive nature of the misconduct, which had implications for national security, the case of the applicant was placed before a Committee of Advisors constituted in accordance with the relevant Government instructions. The Committee, after examining the available material, concluded that the applicant's actions constituted highly undesirable and objectionable conduct with serious security implications and that his continuance in a sensitive organization dealing with internal and national security was not desirable. Accordingly, the Committee recommended dismissal of the applicant from service under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the President of India, after considering the relevant material and the recommendations of the Committee, was satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it was not expedient to hold a departmental inquiry. Consequently, the applicant was dismissed from service vide order dated 03.02.2021. The counsel further submitted that the applicant's allegations regarding MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 9 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2) conspiracy, illegal confinement, coercion or improper conduct by officers are baseless, misconceived and denied. The interactions with the applicant were part of official clarification regarding certain adverse inputs and were conducted in a normal manner. The applicant's claims regarding illegal seizure of belongings and coercion are incorrect and appear to be an afterthought. With regard to the applicant's representation dated 04.03.2021 he answered that the same was also not maintainable as under
the applicable provisions, no appeal lies against an order passed by the President of India under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution. He also alleged that the applicant has failed to make out any legal or factual ground for interference by this Tribunal. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this OA.
6. The counsel of the applicant, while submitting his written arguments has relied on the principle of Res Judicata, in as much as it is squarely covered by the judicial pronouncement of another Division Bench on 22.03.2018 in OA No. 1913/2016 titled Rajiv Chaudhary vs. Cabinet Secretariat. It would be apposite at this stage to notice the observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal wherein the Coordinate Bench vide para 9 of their order framed certain questions which are quoted below :-
"9. The following questions arise for consideration before the Tribunal:-
(1) Whether the order of dismissal passed under sub-clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of Constitution of India is amenable to the judicial review;
(ii) Whether procedural safeguards for invoking jurisdiction/power under sub-clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India have been observed.
(iii) Whether the impugned order is actuated by bias and mala fides."
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 10 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2) Thus, the Coordinate Bench held that although the power under Article 311(2)(c) is exercised on the satisfaction of the President in matters relating to the security of the State, such satisfaction is not completely beyond judicial scrutiny. The Court/Tribunal can still examine the order on limited grounds such as mala fides, consideration of irrelevant factors, violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, or absence of any material. However, the reliance placed by the applicant on the said judgment to contend that his case is squarely covered by the decision in Rajiv Chaudhary (supra) is not entirely justified. In the said case, the Tribunal found that the procedural safeguards and the material forming the basis of the satisfaction required under Article 311(2)(c) were lacking and the action was vitiated on the grounds noted therein. Whether the statement of the respondents that the adverse inputs having security implications examined by a Committee of Advisors and thereafter placed before the Hon'ble President can be amenable to judicial review ?
In our opinion, in the present matter involving allegations relating to security concerns and having been examined by a Committee of Advisors and placed before the Hon'ble President cannot be subject matter of a judicial review. Hence, we are differing with Rajiv Chaudhary's case. The only question of judicial review is whether the adverse inputs having security implications examined by a Committee of Advisors and thereafter placed before the Hon'ble President can be amenable to judicial review ?
7. We have noted that the counsel for the applicant had highlighted various paras from his written statement to strengthen his case. The same are quoted below :-
"3. The applicant is relying on the principle of res judicata inasmuch as his case is not only squarely covered by the judicial MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 11 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2) pronouncement of another Division Bench rendered on dated 22nd March, 2018 in OA No.1993/ 2016 titled Rajiv Chaudhary vs. Cabinet Secretariat, (Annexure A-11 Page 87-116 of the O.A), (which in turn relied upon the law of the land as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulsiram Patel's case (AIR 1985 SC 1416), the case of Satyavir Singh and Others (Civil) Appeal No.242 of 1982 and Civil Appeal No.576 of 1982), but the applicant herein is also better placed inasmuch as the malafide alleged by him are duly proved and the officials against whom the mala fide has been alleged have been arraigned as parties and have admitted their respective role by not responding to the contents of the O.A, even after being serviced Notice twice.
4. In the abovementioned case, the dismissal order was quashed on the basis of the law of the land as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulsiram Patel's case (AIR 1985 SC 1416), the case of Satyavir Singh and Others (Civil Appeal No.242 of 1982 and Civil Appeal No.576 of 1982), and as incorporated as Government of India Decision No.3 under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (Annexure A-06 Pages 66-70 of the O.A.), which lays down that Dismissal of a Central Government employee by invoking Article 311(2) as governed by Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and instructions issued thereunder. Rule 19 (iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 under which, it is the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is empowered to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank a Civil servant on being satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry. The expression "satisfied" implies in itself recording of reasons by the President or the Governor. The expression "interest of the security of the State" means that the act complained of must relate to or involving such action which in any manner tends to endanger the security of the State.
5. The principle of res judicata has been recently reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
v. UP Jal Nigam, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1676, decided on 17-05- 2024 necessary extracts from which are given below:
Issue No. 1: When there are conflicting judgments of different benches of coequal strength of a court on a similar question of law, which one assumes the status of binding precedent when the said question of law has been referred to a larger bench for adjudication?
8. The principle of judicial discipline is a cornerstone of the legal system, essential for maintaining the integrity, coherence, and predictability of judicial decisions. One of the key mechanisms through which judicial discipline is maintained is the doctrine of stare decisis, which literally means "to stand by things decided". Under this doctrine, courts are bound to follow their own previous decisions when confronted with similar legal issues. This principle serves several important purposes. Firstly, it promotes MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 12 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2) consistency and predictability in the law, ensuring that similar cases are decided in a uniform manner. This fosters legal certainty and promotes the rule of law by providing litigants with a clear understanding of their rights and obligations. Secondly, stare decisis promotes respect for judicial authority and fosters public confidence in the legal system. By adhering to established legal precedents, courts demonstrate a respect for the decisions of their predecessors and the principle of continuity in the law. This enhances the legitimacy of judicial decisions and reinforces the notion that courts are impartial arbiters of legal disputes, guided by established legal norms rather than personal preferences or biases.
19. Though the aforesaid was articulated in the context of the High Court, yet this Court has been following the same as is revealed from the aforestated pronouncements including that of the Constitution Bench and, therefore, we entirely agree with the said view because it is the precise warrant of respecting a precedent which is the fundamental norm of judicial discipline." The Court finally concluded that the principle which emerges is that the earlier decision must be followed until the decision of the larger bench is returned, which serves to promote certainty and predictability in the administration of justice.
5. The above law has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgment dated 03.01.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 9941/2016 titled Mary Pushpam Vs. Telvi Guruswamy & Others in the following words:
"1. The rule of 'Judicial Discipline and Propriety' and the Doctrine of precedents has a merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions. The Constitution benches of this court have time and again reiterated the rules emerging from Judicial Discipline. Accordingly, when a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench. It is the Civil Appeal No. 9941 of 2016 Page 2 of 16 only course of action open to a bench of co- equal strength, when faced with the previous decision taken by a bench with same strength."
A copy of the judgment dated 03.01.2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9941/2016 titled Mary Pushpam Vs. Telvi Guruswamy & Others is annexed as Annexure WS-03.6. In terms of law of the land as declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India And Anr vs. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd decided on 17 August, 1990 ((1990) 4 SCC 453) and Dawoodi Bohra (2005) 2 SCC 673, this Hon'ble Bench has powers to refer the matter to a larger Bench even after reserving orders.
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 13 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2)
6. In view of the detailed submissions made above, the applicant most humbly submits that this Division Bench may kindly follow the law of the land as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as detailed above and kindly:
(i) Allow the O.A. by following principle of res judicata, or alternatively, (ii) Refer the O.A. for adjudication by a larger Bench (Full Bench) in view of the law of the land as detailed above."
8. In view of this, this is a fit case to adjudicate whether the order of dismissal passed under sub-clause (c) of the second proviso of Article 311 (2) of Constitution of India is amenable to the judicial review ? If yes! Then whether procedural safeguards for invoking jurisdiction/power under sub-
clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India have been observed?
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, examined the documents on record, and perused the relevant judgments/decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, High Courts, and Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal. In view of the forceful plea of the counsel of the applicant on the grounds of: (i) Res Judicata and (ii) Judicial Discipline, with the ratio extracted from the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in OA/1913/2016 - Rajiv Chaudhary vs. Cabinet Secretariat on 22.03.2018 and the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in:-
(i) M/s. Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. U.P. Jal Nigam and Others - 2024 AHC 89303;
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30' 14 O.A No. 2930/2021 Item 44 (C-2) (ii) Union of India vs. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd., (1990) 4 SCC 453.
(iii) Mary Pushpam & Ors. vs. Telvi Curusumary & Ors., (2021) 9 SCC 486.
10. We are of the considered opinion that it would be more prudent and pragmatic if the matter is referred to the Full Bench of the Tribunal with the concurrence of the Hon'ble Chairman for adjudication of the question framed - Whether judicial review is amenable to the adverse inputs having security implications examined by a Committee of Advisors and thereafter placed before the Hon'ble President and the order is passed under Article 311 2(c) can be amenable to judicial review ?
The instant OA and MAs if any are hereby disposed of in the above said manner.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
MAYA B TARAGI 2026.03.24 14:30:01+05'30'