Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suresh Kumar Bhatia vs Housing And Urban Affairs on 3 March, 2026
1
Item No. 40 (C-2)
O.A. No. 2223/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2223/2025
This the 03rd day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri B. Anand, Member (A)
Suresh Kumar Bhatia, aged about 70 years, S/o Shri T. S. Bhatia,
Ex.JE(Civil)/Group- B R/o Flat No. 4217, Sector D, Pocket-4,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs Nirman Bhawan,
Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110011
2. The Director General, CPWD, A wing, Room No.
101 Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi 110011
3. The Chief Engineer(C)CSQ, CPWD, 328-A Wing
Nirman Bhawan, N.Delhi-110011.
4. Superintending Engineer (TAS),
CSQ, CPWD, Room No. 418, A Wing Nirman
Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. U Srivastava)
DEEKSHA DHINGRA
2026.03.18
DEEKSHA DHINGRA
15:23:29
+05'30'
2
Item No. 40 (C-2)
O.A. No. 2223/2025
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
1. In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
"a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice.
b) Set aside the orders dated 17.12.2014 and 18.3.2025 passed by the respondents and reinstate the applicant alongwith all consequential benefits from the day he was removed from service and consequently grant all service benefits including the pensionary benefits.
c) Directing the respondents to release all the retiral dues of the applicant alongwith consequential benefits after restoring all his service benefits from 08.05.1995 till 30.06.2015 and considering him having been honorably retired w.e.f 30.06.2015.
d) Allowing the OA of the applicant with all other consequential benefits and costs.
e) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted."
2. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents. They have filed the counter reply wherein they have prayed for dismissal of the O.A. with exemplary cost. The applicant has filed rejoinder and he has reiterated his claim and grounds pleaded in the O.A. DEEKSHA DHINGRA 2026.03.18 DEEKSHA DHINGRA 15:23:29 +05'30' 3 Item No. 40 (C-2) O.A. No. 2223/2025
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have also gone through pleadings available on record.
4. It is undisputed that the applicant, while working as Junior Engineer (Civil) under the respondents, was involved in a criminal case registered by the CBI vide RC No. 34A/95 and he was convicted by the learned Trial Court vide the order/judgment dated 31.07.2014. The order of sentence was passed by the learned Trial Court on 05.08.2014. Keeping in view the applicant's conviction in the said criminal case, the respondents have placed the applicant under suspension and issued a show cause notice proposing a penalty of dismissal of the applicant. In response to the same, the applicant has submitted his reply. The respondents vide order dated 17.12.2014 dismissed the applicant from service by invoking the provisions of Rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence by the learned trial court, the applicant preferred a criminal appeal being CRL.A No. 1256/2014 titled SK Bhatia Versus CBI and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order/judgment dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure A-11) set aside DEEKSHA DHINGRA 2026.03.18 DEEKSHA DHINGRA 15:23:29 +05'30' 4 Item No. 40 (C-2) O.A. No. 2223/2025 the order/judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the applicant from the charges framed against him in the said criminal case. Aggrieved by the said order/judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the prosecution, that is, the CBI preferred an SLP (Criminal) D. No. 21648/2020 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court both on merit as well as on the ground of delay vide order/judgment dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure A-12). The applicant is sought to have preferred a representation dated 19.02.2024 seeking his re-instatement and other retiral benefits, however, the request of the applicant was not acceded to compelling him to approach this Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3092/2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2024 with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's representation dated 19.02.2024 in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject. The order, impugned in the O.A., is passed in purported compliance of the directions of the Tribunal in the previous O.A. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the very basis of the impugned order of termination/removal has gone, i.e., once the order of conviction and sentence has been set aside by the Hon'ble DEEKSHA DHINGRA 2026.03.18 DEEKSHA DHINGRA 15:23:29 +05'30' 5 Item No. 40 (C-2) O.A. No. 2223/2025 High Court and the applicant stands acquitted and such acquittal has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissing the relevant SLP, there has been no reason or justification available to the respondents to deny reinstatement of the applicant in service with consequential benefits.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the claim of the applicant by referring to the assertions made in the counter reply, however, he has fairly not disputed that the applicant stands acquitted by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 19.08.2019 and the said order/judgment has attained finality in view of the dismissal of the relevant SLP by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 12.01.2024.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Para 9 of the order dated 19.08.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reads as under:-
"The submissions advanced by both the sides have been duly considered in light of the evidence on record and decisions cited and thereafter, this Court finds that the instant case is not a typical trap case. In this background, the evidence of independent witness Baldev Khera (PW-2) assumes importance. After having scrutinized his evidence and the DEEKSHA DHINGRA 2026.03.18 DEEKSHA DHINGRA 15:23:29 +05'30' 6 Item No. 40 (C-2) O.A. No. 2223/2025 evidence of S.B.Sinha, Trap Laying Officer (PW-6) and the remaining prosecution evidence, I find inherent contradictions inter se the evidence of material witnesses. In a trap case, like the instant one, the prosecution ought to have got the videography of the trap proceedings done, so that the contradictions in the oral deposition of witnesses do not prove fatal to the prosecution case. More importantly, trial court has erred in solely relying upon the prosecution evidence and in discarding otherwise probable defence version. Upon considering the prosecution case as well as the defence version in its entirety, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients of the offence alleged and recovery of bribe money (not powdered) does not stand conclusively proved. Hence, benefit of reasonable doubt accrues to the appellants, as they have explained their presence at the spot by cogent evidence. It is settled legal position that mere recovery of the bribe money by itself, is not sufficient to prove the charge against an accused. In the absence of direct reliable evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe money, the conviction of appellants cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the impugned judgment and order on sentence are hereby set aside and appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them, while extending the benefit of doubt to them. These appeals and application are accordingly disposed of."
8. Admittedly, the applicant's dismissal is based on his conviction in the above criminal case. Therefore, once the conviction is set aside, the dismissal has to go. Moreover, in this regard, we may draw support from the order/judgment dated 18.05.2001 of the Hon'ble Gauhati DEEKSHA DHINGRA 2026.03.18 DEEKSHA DHINGRA 15:23:29 +05'30' 7 Item No. 40 (C-2) O.A. No. 2223/2025 High Court at Agartala Bench in the case of Bidhan Chandra Dey versus State of Tripura and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 553/1996 reported in (2001) Gauhati Law Reports 186, particularly paragraph 8 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has ruled as under:-
"8. When an employee is dismissed from service consequent upon his conviction in a criminal case, he is entitled to be re-instated in service on his acquittal from the said criminal charge in criminal appeal, and the authority has no right to deny the re-instatement. In case the authority/department contemplates to take any further action within the permissibility of law, it could only be done after reinstatement, but unfortunately in the present case, despite the authorities have been apprised of the fact of acquittal of the petitioner supported by documentary evidence, the authorities particularly the Commandant sat idle nor even attended the representation filed by the petitioner."
9. Further, our said view is also strengthened by the judgment dated 14.07.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 174/2022 titled Jahan Singh versus Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. (TRIFED) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has ruled in paragraphs 10 to 18 as under:
"10. The undisputed facts of the case make it very clear that the judgement of conviction was set aside by this Court, and there is no finding arrived at by this Court in criminal appeal that the acquittal is a technical or honourable in nature. Even otherwise, DEEKSHA DHINGRA 2026.03.18 DEEKSHA DHINGRA 15:23:29 +05'30' 8 Item No. 40 (C-2) O.A. No. 2223/2025 the relevant statutory provisions as contained under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, reads as under:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18-
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or
(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or
(iii)where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under clause
(i):
Provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, and the Government servant has been given an opportunity of representing against the advice of the Commission, within the time limit specified in clause (b) of sub- rule (3) of rule 15, before any orders are made In any case under this rule. "
11. Rule 19 of the Rules, 1965 provides for dismissal from service without holding an inquiry, in case a Government Servant is convicted, and Rule 19 of the Rules, 1965 does not provide for any distinction between a technical/ honourable, or one on account of benefit of doubt.
12. Rule 19(5) of the Rules, 1965 simply mentions the word „acquittal‟. It is true that Rule 19(5) of the Rules, 1965 empowers the department to hold a departmental enquiry despite an acquittal. However, in the present case, the employer has decided not to hold a departmental enquiry for reasons best known DEEKSHA DHINGRA 2026.03.18 DEEKSHA DHINGRA 15:23:29 +05'30' 9 Item No. 40 (C-2) O.A. No. 2223/2025 to them, and, therefore, reinstatement of the appellant has become inevitable.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent/ Union of India has vehemently placed reliance upon the judgements delivered in Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1997 3 SCC 636 and T.N. CS. Corpn. Ltd v. K. Meerabhai, (2006) 2 SCC 255.
14. The aforesaid judgements have also been relied upon by the Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement.
15. The judgements relied upon by learned Single Judge are distinguishable on facts. The present case is not a case where the employee is seeking employement in Government service. It is certainly not a case where an employee has made some incorrect statement in the police verification form. It is certainly not a case where a person who is seeking Government job, was subjected to trial and was later on acquitted.
16. On the contrary, the present case pertains to a Government servant - who while being in service, was dismissed on account of conviction and later sought reinstatement, on account of his acquittal.
17. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the judgement delivered by the learned Single Judge deserve to be set aside, and is, accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service forthwith.
18. The respondents, after reinstating appellant shall be free to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the fundamental rules in respect of his claim relating to wages for the period during which he was out of service. The exercise of passing a speaking order in respect of the claims of the appellant, relating to back wages be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order."
DEEKSHA DHINGRA 2026.03.18 DEEKSHA DHINGRA 15:23:29 +05'30' 10 Item No. 40 (C-2) O.A. No. 2223/2025
10. In view of the aforesaid, the O.A. deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed with the following directions:-
i. The impugned orders dated 17.12.2014 and 18.03.2025 are quashed and set aside.
ii. The respondents shall reinstate the applicant in service from the date of his dismissal. iii. The respondents, after reinstating the applicant, shall be free to pass appropriate order(s) keeping in view the relevant rules in respect of his claim relating to the entitlement for the wages and other benefits for the period during which he was out of service, by passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dd /
DEEKSHA DHINGRA
2026.03.18
DEEKSHA DHINGRA
15:23:29
+05'30'