Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Radhakarishna Mallya vs Vandita Kaul, Secretary, D/O Posts, New ... on 25 February, 2026
1
MA.No.170/00517/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.170/00517/2025
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.170/00037/2025
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00526/2023
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Radhakrishna Mallya
Aged about 54 years
S/o Gopala Krishna Mallya
Working as Asst. Supt of Post Offices (R)
O/o Supt of Post Offices
Nanjangud Division, Nanjangud 571 301
Residing at C/o Srikant Prasad
11th cross, R.P. Road, Nanjangud 571 301 .... Applicant
(By Party-in-person)
Vs.
1. Smt. Vandita Kaul
Secretary, Dept of Post
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001
2. Sri K. Prakash
Chief Post Master General
Karnataka Circle
Bangalore 560 001
KAVYA SHREE
K
KAVYA SHREE
CAT, Bangalore
K
2026.03.02
17:52:31+05'30'
2
MA.No.170/00517/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Sri Chandrashekar Kakumanu
Post Master General
South Karnataka Region
Bangalore 560 001 .... Respondents
(By Shri N. Amaresh, Senior Panel Counsel)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This MA is filed by the applicant seeking revival of the Contempt Petition to its original number for further adjudication by recalling the order dated 31.10.2025 passed in Contempt Petition No. 37/2025.
2. Contempt Petition No. 37/2025 was filed by the petitioner alleging breach and wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 526/2023 dated 01.10.2024, the operative portion of which reads thus:
"8. In view of the settled legal position as aforesaid, which has been consistently followed by the various Benches of the Tribunal, we find merit in the case. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure A7) issued by Respondent No.
3 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Subramaniam supra, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
9. Resultantly, OA stands disposed of in terms of above. No order as to costs."
KAVYA SHREE K KAVYA SHREE CAT, Bangalore K 2026.03.02 17:52:31+05'30' 3 MA.No.170/00517/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
3. In the contempt proceedings, reply statement was filed by the respondents and the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"iv) In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the matter was taken up with Postal Directorate and the Postal Directorate, vide letter No. 2-1/2024-PCC dated 23.04.2025, the Chief Postmaster General, Karnataka Circle, vide letter No. LC/2-
53/2023 dated 25.04.2025, issued instructions to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal. Accordingly, the case of the Petitioner was placed before the Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) held on 05.08.2025 for consideration of grant of NFG.
v) The DSC did not recommend the instant case during deliberations due to the following:
a) The Petitioner was issued memorandum of charges under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vide memo No. SK/VIG/2-RKM/CKM/2019 dated 30.12.2019. The proceedings were finalized vide memo No. SK/VIG/2-
RKM/CKM/2019 dated 01.06.2020. The Petitioner preferred an appeal on 07.07.2020, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide memo No. SK/STA/9- 3/01/2020/II dated 29.09.2020.
b) The applicant filed OA No. 200/2023 before the Hon'ble CAT, Bengaluru. The Hon'ble CAT in its order dated 25.02.2025 quashed the disciplinary authority memo and directed the Department to conduct inquiry afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the Applicant. A copy of the Hon'ble CAT order is annexed as Annexure:R1.
c) The disciplinary proceedings are pending as on the date of consideration of the case as per the implementation of orders of Honourable Tribunal in OA number 200/2023.
KAVYA SHREE K KAVYA SHREE CAT, Bangalore K 2026.03.02 17:52:31+05'30' 4 MA.No.170/00517/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
vi) The petitioner submitted CP 37/2025 for non- implementation of the Hon'ble CAT order. The Hon'ble CAT order is implemented in letter and spirit but NFG could not be granted in the petitioner case only due to active disciplinary proceedings. Hence there is no contempt. The DSC also undertook the cases of applicants of Oas agitated on similar grounds filed vide OA No. 524/2023 filed by Sri Puttaswamy, OA 525/2023 filed by Sri Chethan Uttappa & OA 535/2023 filed by Sri Balaji and orders for implementation have been issued as the cases are clear from administrative and vigilance angles." Subsequently, on 31.10.2025, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the Contempt Petition with liberty to revive the Contempt Petition if the need arises. Based on the said memo, Contempt Petition No. 37/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought for, vide order dated 31.10.2025.
4. This application is filed by the petitioner as party-in- person submitting that the said Contempt Petition was withdrawn by the learned counsel without the consent of the applicant. The main ground urged in this application is that neither on the date of the final order in the Original Application nor till filing of the Contempt Petition, the respondents have never informed the petitioner anything about active disciplinary proceedings, but immediately after filing KAVYA SHREE K KAVYA SHREE CAT, Bangalore K 2026.03.02 17:52:31+05'30' 5 MA.No.170/00517/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the Contempt Petition contended that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner, the respondents have misled this Tribunal in making false allegations against the petitioner in the reply statement filed in the contempt proceedings. Thus, seeks for revival of the Contempt Petition.
5. Learned counsel representing the respondents would submit that no false or misleading submissions are made by the respondents. In the order dated 01.10.2024 passed in OA No. 526/2023, the Hon'ble Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in accordance with law. Vigilance clearance is an important criterion to be taken into consideration by the Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) while recommending the financial upgradation of the employee. There is no ambiguity about the absence of vigilance clearance for the petitioner, particularly as a result of outcome of the OA No. 200/2023 filed by the petitioner. Valid reasons have been assigned by the DSC for not recommending the case of the applicant after considering the case of the applicant for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-. In the circumstances, the disciplinary proceedings being KAVYA SHREE K KAVYA SHREE CAT, Bangalore K 2026.03.02 17:52:31+05'30' 6 MA.No.170/00517/2025/CAT/BANGALORE under process at present, no revival of the Contempt Petition is warranted at this juncture.
6. Having heard the petitioner, party-in-person, and the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the considered opinion that the arguments of the petitioner inasmuch as no departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner as on the date of passing of the order in OA No. 526/2023 (DD: 01.10.2024) and filing of the Contempt Petition on 23.09.2025 cannot be countenanced. OA No. 200/2023 filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 01.06.2020 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.09.2020 as well as the order of the Revisional Authority dated 09.05.2022 passed pursuant to the charge memo dated 30.12.2019 were pending. Further, the arguments made by the petitioner, party-in-person, that pursuant to the order dated 25.02.2025 passed in OA No. 200/2023 the aforesaid proceedings were set aside and a fresh charge memo was issued in 28.01.2026, as such, DSC meeting conducted belatedly pursuant to the order dated 01.10.2024 and taking a decision on 05.08.2025 is not valid requires to be rejected for the reason that the original charge memo dated 30.12.2019 was not set aside by this Tribunal. Indeed, the case of the KAVYA SHREE K KAVYA SHREE CAT, Bangalore K 2026.03.02 17:52:31+05'30' 7 MA.No.170/00517/2025/CAT/BANGALORE applicant was considered by the DSC pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No. 526/2023 and for want of vigilance clearance owing to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, no recommendation was made for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-.
7. In the circumstances, liberty having been reserved for the petitioner to seek revival of the Contempt Petition, if the need arises, that means pursuant to the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, at present, no wilful disobedience or breach of the order passed in OA No. 526/2023 being found, we find no reason to recall the order dated 31.10.2025 passed in Contempt Petition No. 37/2025 and to revive the Contempt Petition No. 37/2025.
8. Accordingly, MA for revival of Contempt Petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/
KAVYA SHREE
K
KAVYA SHREE
CAT, Bangalore
K
2026.03.02
17:52:31+05'30'