Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pramod Kumar vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 18 December, 2025
1
(Item 47 - Court 2)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
OA No. 446/2025
MA No. 4789/2025
This the 18th day of December, 2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri B. Anand, Member (A)
Pramod Kumar
s/o Late (Shri) Raj Mani Singh
r/o F-39, Mehar Chand Market, MCD flat Double Storey,
5th Avenue, Lodhi Road. New Delhi-110003
..Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Sandiv Kalia)
Versus
1. Commissioner MCD.
Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Centre, E- Block,
09th floor, JLN Marg, New Delhi - 110002
2. Chief Vigilance Officer MCD
Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Centre. E- Block,
26th floor, JLN Marg, New Delhi - 110002
3. Director of Education MCD
Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Centre, E- Block, 15th floor,
JLN Marg, New Delhi-110002
4. Administrative Officer
Land & Estate Department
Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Civic Centre,
7th floor, JLN Marg. New Delhi-110002
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Anupama Bansal)
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA
2
(Item 47 - Court 2)
O R D E R(Oral)
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J) The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"8.11 To set aside of above-mentioned impugned Office Order impugned Office Order No 01/03/2020/Vig/P/KS /2024/2083 dated 26.11.24, issued by Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Vigilance Department.
8.12. Applicant be re-instated back, to his previous post and privileges along with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances and other benefits which accrue to him.
8.13. Direct the respondents to reinstate the Applicant with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances and other benefits which accrue to him on account of grant of prayer (a).
8.14. In alternative direct the respondents to pass a final reason and speaking order.
8.15. Cost of litigation be directed to be paid by the respondents, the quantum of which this Hon'ble Tribunal may decide along with compensation keeping in view the agonies of the applicant."
2. Subsequently, MA No. 4789/2025 has been filed by the applicant seeking to place on record the order passed by the appellate authority, i.e., His Excellency, the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, dated 05.06.2025. The MA has been filed with the following prayer:
"A. Allow the present Application;
B. Permit the Applicant to amend / modify the pleadings in O.A. No: 448 of 2025 by incorporating the new facts and circumstances arising from the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor's Order dated 05.06.2025.
C To include the said order of, Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor's Order dated 05.06.2025, with RDA/01/03/2020 Letter No. 01/ 03/ 2020/ JLO/KS/Vig/2025/964 dated 13.06.2025, as impugned order.
SOURJYA SOBHANIYA 3 (Item 47 - Court 2) D. Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. It is submitted that the OA was earlier filed on 22.01.2025, wherein only the order passed by the disciplinary authority was under challenge. During the pendency of the OA, the appellate authority has passed its order, and therefore the present MA has been filed seeking to place the same on record.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has objected to the MA and has drawn our attention to the preliminary objection raised in the counter affidavit, wherein it was contended that the OA itself was premature as the matter was pending before the appellate authority at the relevant time.
5. We note that by way of the present MA, the applicant seeks merely to place on record the order passed by the appellate authority. However, there is no substantive challenge to the appellate authority's order in the OA as it presently stands. The correct procedure in such matters is to challenge both the disciplinary authority's order and the appellate authority's order together in a consolidated manner. Merely placing the appellate order on record by way of an MA without assailing it substantively cannot cure the defect.
6. The applicant was offered an opportunity by the Tribunal to withdraw the present OA and file a consolidated OA challenging both the orders, namely, the order of the disciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority. However, the applicant declined the said offer.
SOURJYA SOBHANIYA 4 (Item 47 - Court 2)
7. In view of the above, the MA is dismissed. Resultantly, the OA is also dismissed, with liberty to the applicant to file a substantive petition challenging both the disciplinary authority's order and the appellate authority's order, in accordance with law.
No costs
(B Anand) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ss/
SOURJYA
SOBHANIYA