Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
P Sudershan Reddy vs Dept Of Posts on 27 February, 2026
1
OA.No.443/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/443/2017
ORDER RESERVED ON 28.01.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 27.02.2026
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
P.Sudershan Reddy
S/o. P.Masi Reddy, Aged 55 years
Occ: SPM, Veldanda SO (U/s.)
Wanaparthy Division
Wanaparthy District (T.S.) .....Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri B Gurudas)
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep by
The Chief Postmaster General, TG Circle
HYDERABAD - 500 001, (TS).
2. The Director, Postal Services
O/o. The Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region
HYDERABAD - 500 001, (TS).
3. The Postmaster General
Hyderabad Region
HYDERABAD - 500 001, (TS).
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Wanaparthy Division
Wanaparthy District, (T.S) ...Respondents.
(By Advocate: Smt.B.Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC)
******
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=
NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD,
Phone=
PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.02.27 17:46:38+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.443/2017
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"....to call for the records pertaining to the following orders,
1. 4th Respondent memo No.F4-2/2015-16, dated 02.06.2016 (A-II)
2. 4th Respondent memo No.F4-2/2015-16,dated 18.11.2016 (A-IV)
3. 4th Respondent memo No.F4-2/2015-16,dated 09.05.2017(A-VIII)
4. 4th Respondent memo No.F4-2/2015-16, dated 17.05.2017 (A-X) and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside and quash the said illegal orders with a consequential direction, to revoke the suspension and reinstate the Applicant into service with retrospective effect from 07.06.2016 with full pay and allowances as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above and Orders of DOPT dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure-XII) and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. Facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are given below, in brief:
i. The applicant was appointed as a Postal Assistant in the year 1981 in Wanaparthy Postal Division and posted as such at Wanaparthy HO.
He was granted three financial upgradations under the MACP Scheme.
ii. While working as SPM at Veldanda S.O., the applicant was placed under suspension without any prima facie case established against him and without furnishing any reasons, vide memo No.B1-95/KW, dt.07.03.2016. The suspension was subsequently extended thrice, for 180 days on each occasion, vide Memos No.F4-2/2015-16, dt.02.06.2016, 18.11.2016, and, 09.05.2017, without furnishing any reasons for extension.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.27 17:46:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.443/2017 iii. The 4th Respondent issued a charge sheet after eight months, under Rule-14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, vide memo No.F4- 2/Veldanda SO/2015-16, dt.25.11.2016, containing three false and fictitious allegations. As per rules, the charge sheet has to be issued within three months, failing which the suspension lapses.
iv. It is submitted that the applicant submitted a representation, dt.30.11.2016, to the Respondents, requesting them to increase the Subsistence Allowance (S.A., for short) and reinstate him into service.
Since, there was no response, he submitted another representation, dt.11.05.2017, to the 4th Respondent, requesting to reinstate him into service, with retrospective effect, as per the orders of the DOPT, but the 4th Respondent rejected his request, vide letter No.F4-2/2015-16, dt.17.05.2017, saying that the period of suspension is extended as per the decision taken by the Suspension Review Committee (SRC, in short).
v. The 4th Respondent sanctioned 50% of the salary as S.A., vide Memo No.F4-2/2015-16, dt.07.06.2016, and did not increase the S.A. from 50% to 75%, even after three months, which is contrary to the provisions contained in FR-53 (1) (ii) (a) (i), as the applicant is not responsible for the prolonged suspension.
3. The grounds raised by the Applicant, while seeking the relief, are as follows:
i. The action of the Respondents in suspending the applicant and in not increasing his S.A. and extending his suspension after the 1st review, without justification, violating the Rules and Orders of the DOPT on the Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.27 17:46:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.443/2017 subject, is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ii. The 4th Respondent failed to issue any charge sheet within three months of placing him under suspension, violating the orders contained in DOP Memo No.39/39/70-Ests. (A), dt.4th February, 1971. Relevant portion of the Memo is reproduced hereunder -
"In partial modification of earlier orders, it has been decided that every effort should be made to file the charge sheet in court or serve the charge sheet on the Government servant, as the case may be, within three months of the date of suspension."
The inaction on the part of the Respondents is illegal, arbitrary and against the above orders.
iii. The action of the Respondents in placing the applicant under suspension, without establishing any prima facie case against him and extending the same, without furnishing any reasons, is illegal, arbitrary and against Rules 3 and 17 of the Postal Manual, Vol-III, Orders of the DOPT and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
iv. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.1912 of 2015, had directed that -
"14. ....... the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period, the Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee."
v. In pursuance of the Supreme Court judgment (supra), the DOPT issued orders through OM No.11012/04/2016-Estt(A), dt.23.08.2016, that charge sheet should be issued within 90 days invariably, failing which, suspension lapses. Relevant para is extracted below: Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.27 17:46:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.443/2017 "2. In compliance of the above judgment, it has been decided that wherever a Government servant is placed under suspension, the order of suspension should not extend beyond three months, if within this period, the charge sheet is not served to the charged officer. As such, it should be ensured that the charge sheet is issued before expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. As the suspension will lapse in case this time line is not adhered to, a close watch needs to be kept at all levels to ensure that charge sheets are issued in time."
(emphasis supplied) According to the judgment of the Supreme Court and the orders of the DOPT, the period of suspension beyond 90 days is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the suspension of the applicant has to be deemed to have lapsed / been revoked, w.e.f. 07.06.2016, with full pay and allowances. vi. The applicant is further relying upon the orders of this Tribunal passed in the following O.As., in support of his claim -
a. Order, dt.01.03.2016, in OA.No.124 of 2015, A.Pullaiah vs. Union of India.
b. Order, dt.09.12.2016, in OA.No.418 of 2016, P.Mallikarjuna vs. Union of India.
c. Order, dt.16.04.2013, in OA.No.1379 of 2012, Srinivasulu vs. Union of India
4. Representations submitted by the applicant, seeking revocation of suspension, were not considered. Hence, this OA.
5. On notice, Respondents appeared through their Counsel and filed their reply statement in which they have averred as follows:
i. Sri P.Sudershan Reddy, the applicant herein, was posted as Sub Postmaster, Veldanda Sub Post Office (SO, for short), on 30.09.2013, and continued as such till 09.03.2016. The applicant was placed under suspension, vide Memo No.B1-95/k.w., dt.07.03.2016, of the 4th Respondent. The suspension came into effect on 09.03.2016 A/N. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.27 17:46:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.443/2017 ii. It is submitted that, a report, dt. 25.02.2016, was received from the Inspector Posts (IP, for short), Shadnagar Sub Division, by the 4th Respondent, wherein it was informed that when the IP visited Veldanda S.O., on 15.02.2016, as per the orders of the 4th Respondent, for verification of credit particulars in Rural Postal Life Insurance (for short, RPLI) Policy in the case of Smt.P.Nagalakshmi, R/o Veldanda, while checking the records, he noticed non-credit of a deposit transaction for Rs.60,000/-, which took place in Savings Bank Account No.509112, on 06.02.2016. Records confirmed that the applicant had accepted a deposit of Rs.60,000/- in the S.B.Account, on
06.02.2016, but had failed to take it into account on that day, i.e., 06.02.2016. Then the applicant allowed a withdrawal of Rs.62,000/- from the same account, on 17.02.2016, by preparing a withdrawal form himself for Rs.2,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid to the depositor from his pocket. Since misappropriation of public money had taken place, the 4th Respondent ordered suspension of the applicant, vide memo No.B1-95/k.w., dt.07.03.2016, and it was effected on the afternoon of 09.03.2016.
iii. It is submitted that, during further investigation by the Inspector Posts, the following irregularities were noticed, as reported, vide his report, dt.09.09.2016, -
a. An amount of Rs.2500/- was defrauded in the Recurring Deposit (R.D.) accounts by noting wrong totals in the R.D. List of Transactions, dt. 05.10.2013, 12.12.2012, 27.05.2014, 14.10.2014, 08.04.2015, 22.01.2016, 12.02.2016 and 27.07.2015. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.27 17:46:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.443/2017 b. The applicant closed the R.D. accounts in respect of Account Nos.89190 and 89354 for Rs.1,114/- and Rs.5,253/-, on 16.06.2015, and, 23.01.2016, respectively, but failed to take into account the said amounts.
iv. The suspension of the applicant was reviewed by the SRC, periodically, which recommended extension of the suspension for a further period of 180 days from the date of expiry of the previous suspension period. The applicant was granted S.A. equal to 50% of leave salary, and the dearness allowances, under the provisions of FR 53(1) (ii), by the 4th Respondent.
v. It is further submitted that the applicant was served with a charge memorandum, under Rule-14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, vide the 4th Respondent memo No.F4-2/Veldanda S.O./2015-16, dt.25.11.2016. The Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed, vide memo No.F4-2/Veldanda S.O./2015-16, dt.06.12.2016, to conduct detailed inquiry into the charges framed against the applicant. The contention of the applicant that there were no adverse remarks earlier against him is rebutted as disciplinary proceedings were held by the 4th Respondent against the applicant, vide memos, dt.18.05.1987, and, 11.09.1998, on various charges. vi. The applicant was placed under suspension for the irregularities committed by him and the case was reviewed periodically and suspension was extended, vide Memos, dt.02.06.2016, 18.11.2016, and, 09.05.2017, as per the recommendations of the SRC. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.27 17:46:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.443/2017 vii. It is admitted that the investigation into the fraud took a lot of time to assess the amount involved, by procuring the evidence. Delay occurred in taking disciplinary action against the applicant, on account of administrative reasons only. After the fraud was established by the investigating officer, the 4th Respondent issued the charge memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, vide memo, dt.25.11.2016. It is argued that there was no wanton delay in the matter.
viii. Respondents have accepted that the applicant had submitted representations, dt.30.11.2016, and, 11.05.2017, to the 4th Respondent and had requested to increase the S.A. and to reinstate him into service. The 4th Respondent rejected the request of the applicant for his reinstatement on the ground that the period of suspension is extended as per the recommendations of the SRC. It is also admitted that the applicant was granted S.A. of 50% of his last pay, vide 4th Respondent memo, dt.07.06.2016, and the Committee had not recommended enhancement of the quantum of S.A. after the first three months of suspension.
ix. According to the Respondents, suspension in the instant case is totally justified since the applicant had committed fraud and exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty. The period of suspension was extended, as per the recommendations of the SRC, after examining the circumstances of the case. There is no violation of rules or illegality on the part of the Respondents.Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.27 17:46:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.443/2017 x. It is further submitted that there is no disobedience of Court orders.
The period of suspension of the applicant is being extended as per the recommendations of the SRC, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations against the applicant and, as such, the applicant has not made out any case warranting interference in the matter, and, therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed in public interest, as the applicant has committed fraud with public money.
6. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
7. It is worth noting that the applicant retired from service on 31.07.2022. The applicant had filed OA.No.487/2017, which was disposed of, vide order, dt.04.12.2024, by this Tribunal. The relief sought in OA.No.487/2017 was as follows -
"....to call for the records pertaining to the following impugned orders issued by the 4th respondent vide,
1. Memo No.F4-2/2015-16, dated 02.06.2016 extn. of suspension (A-II)
2. Memo No.F4-2/2015-16, dated 07.06.2016 sub-Allowance (A-III)
3. Memo No.F4-2/2015-16,dated 18.11.2016 extn. of suspension (A-IV)
4. Memo No.F4-2/2015-16, dated 19.12.2016 sub-Allowance (A-VII)
5. Memo No.F4-2/Veldanda SO/2015-16, dtd.09.05.2017 extn.suspn(A-VIII)
6. Memo No.F4-2/2015-16, dated 25.05.2017 sub-Allowance (A-IX) and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rules and instructions prescribed and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside and quash the said illegal orders passed by the Respondents with a consequential direction to increase the subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% w.e.f. 07.06.2016 and revoke the suspension and reinstate the Applicant into service as per rules/orders immediately with consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.27 17:46:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.443/2017
8. The operative portion of the order, dt.04.12.2024, of this Tribunal, in OA.No.487/2017, is given below -
"10. Accordingly, a case is made out by the applicant for our interference. The OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to enhance the subsistence allowance of the applicant, after the first three months of suspension, from 50% to a quantum of subsistence allowance to be decided by the competent authority, which must be reasonable. The said exercise has to be carried out within two months from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, the enhanced subsistence allowance has to be released to the applicant by the appropriate mode, within time prescribed, as the applicant has retired on superannuation. No order as to costs." (emphasis supplied)
9. The order passed by the department as per their SPEAKING ORDER, dt.29.10.2025, reads thus -
"4. Decision:
NOW THEREFORE, in pursuance of the Hon'ble Tribunal orders dated 04.12.2024 in OA No.487/2017 filed by Sri P.Sudershan Reddy and in accordance with the rulings on the subject, the subsistence allowance paid to Sri P.Sudershan Reddy, Retired PA, Stn Jadcherla HO is increased from 50% of basic allowances to 65% w.e.f. 06.06.2016 to 31.10.2018, under the provisions of FR 53 (1) (ii) (a)."
10. The issue of enhancement of subsistence allowance was decided in OA.No.487/2017, vide order, dt.04.12.2024 (supra), by allowing the OA and directing the competent authority to enhance the subsistence allowance of the applicant after the first three months of suspension. In the present OA, the applicant has pressed for revocation of his suspension. It is clear that suspension has been extended but the charge memo was not served on the applicant within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of suspension. It is not the case of the Respondents that the departmental proceedings were delayed on account of any dilatory tactics on the part of the applicant. In the absence of any liability in this regard, on the part of the applicant, it is clear that the valid period of suspension had lapsed on the 90th day and the applicant should have been Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.27 17:46:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.443/2017 automatically reinstated, thereafter. The applicant's suspension was finally revoked, vide order, dt.31.10.2018, by treating the period of his suspension "as such for all purposes".
11. In the light of the above facts, the applicant is found to be entitled to reinstatement since the 90-day period of suspension lapsed on account of failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to serve the charge memo on him. Hence, the period of suspension, after the initial period of 90 days, till the date of his reinstatement, i.e., 31.10.2018, shall be treated as on duty and all the consequential benefits, including the monetary benefits in terms of pay and allowances, shall be extended to the applicant, after adjusting the subsistence allowance, and any other allowances, already paid to him, for the period of suspension beyond 90 days, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. The OA is allowed, in the above terms. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr.Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
27.02.2026
/ps/
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2026.02.27 17:46:38+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0