Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Khawaja Bux vs M/O Communications on 19 February, 2025
OA No. 330/1541 of 2013
(Reserved)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 19th day of February, 2025
Original Application No. 330/1541 of 2013
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Khawaja Bux, a/a 57 years, S/o Sri Rasool Bux, R/o House
No.199, inside Orchhagate near Toria ki Masjid, Jhansi, District
Jhansi ....Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Vinod Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication
and information Department of Postal, Dak Bhawan, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi
2. Director Postal Services C/o Post Master General, Agra
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
3. Superintendent, Rail Mail Service 'X' Division, Jhansi
Division office, Jhansi
...... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar Shukla
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):
Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Praveen Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents in both the cases at the time of hearing. Though the matter was heard along with O.A. No.1044/2012, but for better appreciation of the matter, the case is being disposed of separately.Page 1 of 14
OA No. 330/1541 of 2013
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
I. For quashing the impugned order dated 25.06.2013 with all consequential benefits.
II. To issue an order or direction upon the respondents to pay the entire arrears of difference of salary (pay and grade) and restore the pay and grade of the applicant along with all other consequential benefits with 12 % interest for which time bound direction is praying.
III. To pass any such order as deem fit and proper as per facts and circumstances of the case with all consequential benefits.
IV. To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant."
3. The brief facts as apparent from the record of Original Application No.1541/2013 are that on 15.11.2007, the applicant while performing his duties in X-passenger as Mailguard from Jhansi to Manikpur and was booked for duty on 16.11.2007 from Manikpur to Jhansi, one Sri Gajendra Babu, Assistant Regular Mail Man was not turn up for duty, therefore, another mailman Sri Bharat Kumar Sharma was proposed for duty with the applicant, PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA but he was also not turn up and as such, the applicant was ordered to perform alone both the duties by the S.R.O., Jhansi. On 15.11.2007 itself, the applicant received Transit Beg from Post Office Karwi to Post Office Manikpur. After the duty was over at Manikpur, the applicant handed over all the articles along with Transit Beg of Post Office Karwi to S.R.O. (R.M.S), Manikpur on 15.11.2007. Thereafter, the applicant was present in the rest house of R.M.S. Railway Station Manikpur from 15.11.2007 at about 2:00PM till 16.11.2007 at about 09:00 AM and during this period, no complaint was made against the applicant by the S.R.O. /Post Office Manikpur. However, on the next date i.e. on 16.11.2007, he was booked for return duty in 'X'-6-in Passenger Train from Manikpur to Jhansi, the Mailman of Post Office Manikpur handed over another Transit Beg for karwi Post and train was departure on 09:30 AM. The applicant found loose Page 2 of 14 OA No. 330/1541 of 2013 bundle of Rs.30,000/- while opening the said Transit Beg for shorting.
3.1 Subsequently, the applicant kept Rs.30,000/- in light box for depositing in the S.R.O. Jhansi as mentioned in daily report dated 16.11.2007 by the applicant, but when the train reached at Karwi Station, some Post Office Employees along with Railway Protection Force Staff entered in the Rail Mail Services Bogie without any permission and badly misbehaved with the applicant, who was on duty and asked about the cash, which was safely kept in the light box. Since the applicant was known to the post office employees, therefore, he handed the said cash of Rs.30,000/- without any hesitation, but the concerned employee did not give any receipt to the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant mentioned entire history in the daily report and sent from Banda while he was on duty, which was duly received by the officer concerned. The applicant also indicated the conduct of the post office employees as well as Railway Protection Force officials. However, the applicant was charge-sheeted on the charge of misappropriating the money of Rs.30,000/- meant for sub Post Office Manikpur sent from Karvi. A preliminary inquiry was held PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA against the applicant.
3.2 During the inquiry proceeding, the S.R.O. (R.M.S), Manikpur(S.W.-1) and Mailman (S.W.-2), Post office Manikpur in their statement dated 20.11.2007 stated that all the begs and their seal were found to be intact and there was no tampering in the begs and the said begs were in good position. However, the Post Master, Post Office Manikpur distorted the actual facts and made a false story only for receiving the unaccounted cash.
3.3 On the basis of statement recorded in the preliminary inquiry, the applicant was not guilty for the above allegation. However, the respondents served a major penalty charge sheet on 30.05.2008 upon the applicant after seven months issued by Superintendent R.MS. 'X' Division with the charge that the applicant stolen Rs.30,000/- inside the sealed cover cash beg while taking advantage of single hand (up and down) duty.
Page 3 of 14OA No. 330/1541 of 2013 3.4 Subsequently, an inquiry proceeding was initiated and Inquiry Officer after conducting, full fledged inquiry, held that the charges levelled against the applicant, were proved. In view thereof, the applicant filed his reply, denied all the charges. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 29.04.2009 inflicted the punishment of reduction in pay by reducing the pay scale of Rs.9370 to Rs.5200/- in lower pay scale with reduction in grade pay from Rs.2800/- to Rs. 2000/- against the applicant with cumulative effect.
3.5 Against which, the applicant filed a Department Appeal on 12.06.2009, but the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.01.2010 dismissed the appeal of the applicant by affirming the order of Disciplinary Authority.
3.6 Against which, the applicant earlier approached before this Tribunal by filing Original Application No.339/2010, which was finally disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2013 with the following directions:-
11. The O.A. is disposed of. The impugned Appellate Order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure A-1) and the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 29.04.2009 (Annexure-2) are hereby quashed. The matter remanded to the respondents PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA to take a re-look at the entire service records specially in the light of observation made in paras 7 and 10 above and take a fresh decision either confirming or reducing the quantum of punishment by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
No costs. \ 3.7 In compliance thereof, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 25.06.2013 modified the punishment from the stage of Rs.5200 to 5650 in pay band and grade pay is also modified from Rs.2000 to 2400/- for a period of 02 years w.e.f. 01.05.2009. It is further directed that Shri Khawaja Bux will not earn increments of pay during the period and that on the expiry of this period, the change in the pay will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The order dated 25.06.2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority is impugned in this Original Application.
Page 4 of 14OA No. 330/1541 of 2013
4. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 22.05.2014, wherein it has been stated that the Post Master at Sub Post Office Manikpur opened the Transit Bag (hereinafter referred as TB) from Karvi in the morning of 16.11.2007 and he found the mail bag and registered bags have been damaged and Rs.30000/ invoiced to him was missing. He contacted the post Master at Karvi head Post Office, who confirmed that Rs. 30000/- had been sent to Manikpur. Thereafter he communicated his suspicion of the applicant having taken Rs.30,000/- Head Post Master, Karvi agreed and sent some representative who along with RPF personnel boarded the train at Karvi and found the money. The money was confirmed by the Treasure, Karvi as being the same that had been sent to Manikpur. Therefore, this is a straight case of misappropriation of money, which was fortunately prevented by prompt action of sub Post Master, Manikpur and Post Master, Head Post Office, Karvi.
4.1 The applicant was punished with a penalty of reduction of pay from Rs.9370/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2800 to Rs.5200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2000 w.e.f. 01.05.2009 with PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA cumulative effect vide order dated 29.04.2009, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.01.2010. Thereafter, the applicant filed O.A. No.339/2010 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of by this Tribunal with a direction upon the respondents to pass a fresh order.
4.2 In view thereof, the respondent-Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 25.06.2013, modified the earlier punishment awarded to the applicant. The inquiry Officer had held that the charges against the applicant were proved. During the inquiry proceeding, the applicant was given ample opportunity to defend his case. The applicant failed to exhaust alternative remedy as the applicant had not filed any Departmental Appeal against the impugned order dated 25.06.2013. Hence, instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
Page 5 of 14OA No. 330/1541 of 2013
5. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 07.10.2015, wherein, reiterating the averments as made in Original Application. However, it is stated that the Disciplinary Authority illegally passed the impugned order as none of the charges were made out against the applicant.
6. Mr. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order dated 25.06.2013 on the ground that in earlier round of litigation, this Hon'ble Tribunal has already quashed the entire proceeding, but the Disciplinary Authority instead of exempting the applicant from all the charges, reduced the earlier the punishments. The respondents have failed to establish the allegation against the applicant regarding misappropriation of Rs.30,000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that at the time of handing over the Transit Bag, none has alleged about the missing of said amount or regarding the opening of bag meaning thereby some other person has opened the alleged Transit Bag for the purpose of stoling the money, but the respondents are deliberately made allegation about the theft of Rs.30,000/- against the applicant, which has also not been proved during the inquiry as no recovery has been PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA made from the applicant.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that in compliance of the order of this Tribunal, the Disciplinary Authority has already passed a speaking order by modifying the earlier punishment and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. During the pendency of this Original Application, all the retiral benefits for which the applicant is legally entitled for, have already been paid to the applicant. The applicant has directly approached this Tribunal against the order of Disciplinary Authority without availing the alternative remedy. Hence, instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
Page 6 of 14OA No. 330/1541 of 2013
9. From perusal of the records, it appears that admittedly the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal by filing Original Application No.339/2010, challenging the appellate order dated 27.01.2010 as well as order dated 29.04.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and this Tribunal vide order dated 05.02.2013 disposed of the aforesaid Original Application with the following observations & directions:-
7. In our opinion in this case there has been no violation of principle of natural justice or irregularity in the process of conducting the disciplinary case from the issue of charge sheet and thereafter the applicant himself has not pointed to any major instances beyond stating certain lapses of interpretation by the Inquiry Officer in the statement made by SW 1 and SW 2. However, there are certain circumstances which are we feel rather curious and arbitrary. As per the normal departmental procedure, all postal mail being carried under the RMS system, at the end of journey, is handed over to SRO RMS as was done in this case at Manikpur. Various daks are opened and mail is sorted for various destination at one point generally the Head Post Office from where mail received from other destination are pooled/separated and sent to Sub Post Offices. In this case also, the same procedure of at-least one more point of redistribution after the dak was received at Manikpur station and sent to Sub Post Office Manikpur (where money was found missing) would have been adopted. The task of sorting mail is a round the clock affair, PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Mail that was received at 2.00 p.m. on 15.11.2007 also remained in someone's custody till it was opened at 9.00 a.m. on 16.11.2007. It is curious that Post Master of Sub Post Office Manikpur immediately felt suspicious of the applicant and not of the entire range of persons who had custody of the mail. He has stated in his statement that although he went to Manikpur station, he neither carried out any search nor attempted to detain the applicant nor communicated the loss to any superior. He has stated that he did not do so as he did not have the proper authority. He straightaway contacted the Post Master at Head Post Office Karvi who ordered the search and seizer. It is not clear whether The Head Post Master Karvi had the proper authority to order a search and seizer. He has further stated that he had accounted for the money in his Account Register as Rs.30,000/- was recovered and accounted for.
xxx xxx xxx
10. However in this particular case, in our opinion apart from the circumstances mentioned in para 7 there are certain mitigating circumstances for example 29 years of service without any past record of misdeed or any punishment being Page 7 of 14 OA No. 330/1541 of 2013 accorded. The applicant has stated that he had been alone în charge of dak between stations on many previous occasions. This averment has not been denied by the respondents. It is also true that the applicant was physically present at Manikpur where the loss of money, could have been detected at any point of time before the departure of return train as sorting the mail ete. is a round clock job and the opening or cutting of a sealed money bag and rebagging of it could have been detected in any point of time. This does not appear to be normal behaviour of a person, who is guilty of certain misdeed. The Disciplinary Authority has awarded the punishment, which to our mind seems rather heavy without giving full weightage to these factors.
11. The O.A. is disposed of. The impugned Appellate Order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure A-1) and the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 29.04.2009 (Annexure-2) are hereby quashed. The matter remanded to the respondents to take a re-look at the entire service records specially in the light of observation made in paras 7 and 10 above and take a fresh decision either confirming or reducing the quantum of punishment by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
No costs.
10. In compliance of the above, the respondent- Disciplinary Authority vide impugned order dated 25.06.2013, modified the earlier punishment awarded to the applicant, by modifying the pay of the applicant from the stage Rs.5200 to PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Rs.5650 in the pay band and the grade pay is modified from Rs.2000 to 2400/- for a period of 02 years w.e.f 01.05.2009. It was further ordered that the applicant will not earn increments of pay during the period and that on the expiry of this period, the change in the pay will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Hence, this Original Application has been filed.
11. Further, it appears that admittedly, the applicant has alternative remedy before Department Appeal, but the applicant directly rush to this Tribunal without availing the same. Rule 23 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 provide for filing an appeal to the next higher Authority. Right of appeal is a substantive right and without availing the same, the applicant approached this Tribunal, challenging the order dated 25.06.2013. It is settled law that when an alternative remedy is available, without availing the Page 8 of 14 OA No. 330/1541 of 2013 same, the Court would be slow in entertaining the applications directly. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in case of The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Greatship (India) Limited), reported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 948, wherein it has been held as under:-
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of the MVAT Act and CST Act, the assessee straightway preferred writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the statutes provide for the right of appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and against the order passed by the first appellate authority, an appeal/revision before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the assessment order in view of the availability of statutory remedy under the Act. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Satyawati Tondon (supra) in which this Court had an occasion to consider the entertainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by by-passing the statutory remedies, is required to be referred to. After considering the earlier decisions of this Court, in paragraphs 49 to 52, it was observed and held as under:
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA "49. The views expressed in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd.
vs. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 were echoed in CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260 in the following words: (SCC p. 264, para 3) "3. ... Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute.Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged."Page 9 of 14
OA No. 330/1541 of 2013
50. In Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 this Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the DRT Act and observed: (SCC p. 570, paras 5-6) "5. In our opinion, the order which was passed by the Tribunal directing sale of mortgaged property was appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short „the Act‟). The High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 in view of the provision for alternative remedy contained in the Act. We do not propose to go into the correctness of the decision of the High Court and whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to be decided before an appropriate forum.
6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions.
This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act."
51. In CCT v. Indian Explosives Ltd. [(2008) 3 SCC 688] the Court reversed an order passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court quashing the show-cause notice issued to the respondent under the Orissa Sales Tax Act by observing that the High Court had completely ignored the parameters laid down by this Court in a large number of cases relating to exhaustion of alternative remedy.
52. In City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala [(2009) 1 SCC 168] the Court highlighted the parameters which are required to be kept in view by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Paras 29 and 30 of that judgment which contain the views of this Court read as under: (SCC pp. 175-76) Page 10 of 14 OA No. 330/1541 of 2013 "29. In our opinion, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty-bound to take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration and decide for itself even in the absence of proper affidavits from the State and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of the material made available on record. There is nothing like issuing an ex parte writ of mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. Further, while considering the validity of impugned action or inaction the Court will not consider itself restricted to the pleadings of the State but would be free to satisfy itself whether any case as such is made out by a person invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty- bound to consider whether:
(a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved;
(b) the petition reveals all material facts;
(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;
(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;
(e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation;
(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA The Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case may be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant facts truly and accurately for the consideration of the Court and particularly in cases where public revenue and public interest are involved. Such directions are always required to be complied with by the State. No relief could be granted in a public law remedy as a matter of course only on the ground that the State did not file its counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. Further, empty and self-defeating affidavits or statements of Government spokesmen by themselves do not form basis to grant any relief to a person in a public law remedy to which he is not otherwise entitled to in law."
53. In Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2010) 4 SCC 772] the Court was dealing with the issue whether the alternative statutory remedy available under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 can be bypassed and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Page 11 of 14 OA No. 330/1541 of 2013 Constitution could be invoked. After examining the scheme of the Act, the Court observed: (SCC p. 781, paras 31-32) "31. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In this case the High Court is a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go-by by a litigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The High Court, with great respect, fell into a manifest error by not appreciating this aspect of the matter. It has however dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
32. No reason could be assigned by the appellant's counsel to demonstrate why the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of FEMA does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appellate forum."
7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order, by- passing the statutory remedies.
8. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, referred to hereinabove, are PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA concerned, the question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the question is about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal. There are serious disputes on facts as to whether the assessment order was passed on 20.03.2020 or 14.07.2020 (as alleged by the assessee). No valid reasons have been shown by the assessee to by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal. This Court has consistently taken the view that when there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions.
9. In view of the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition against the assessment order. The High Court ought to have relegated the writ petitioner - assessee to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and thereafter to avail other remedies provided under the statute.
Page 12 of 14OA No. 330/1541 of 2013
12. Further even where the matter had remained pending before the Court for substantial period there was nothing wrong or illegal in relegating the party to approach the Appellate Authority provided under the Rule. There can be no issue that the Appellate Authority would be having wider scope and jurisdiction as compared to this Court and therefore, apparently no prejudice can be caused to the applicant. It is also an admitted fact that there is no interim order operative in favour of the applicant during the pendency of this Original Application. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in case of Sitaram Vishwakarma Vs. Engineer in Chief, PWD and Others, reported in (2012) 8 ADJ 574 (DB). Relevant para of the said judgment is quoted as under:-
The second argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the Writ Court ought to have heard the petition on merits also cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal preposition that where an alternative remedy is available, the Writ Court would be slow in entertaining the petitions directly. Further even where the matter had remained pending before the Writ Court for substantial period there was nothing wrong or illegal in relegating the party to approach the Appellate Authority provided under the statute. There can be no issue that the Appellate Authority would be having PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA wider scope and jurisdiction as compared to the writ jurisdiction and, therefore, apparently no prejudice can be caused to the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that there is no interim order operative in favour of the appellant during the pendency of the writ petition.
13. In view of the above discussions, instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. However, The applicant is relegated to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and other remedies available under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is directed that if such a remedy is availed within a period of four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall decide and dispose of the same on its own merits in accordance with law without raising any question of limitation, however, subject to fulfilling the other conditions, if any, under the Rules, 1965. It is made clear that we have not expressed Page 13 of 14 OA No. 330/1541 of 2013 any opinion on the merits of the case in favour of either of the parties and it is for the appellate authority and/or appropriate authority to consider the appeal/proceedings on its/their own merits
14. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
15. No order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial) PM/ PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Page 14 of 14