Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Sanjay Kumar vs Postal on 11 November, 2025
-1- OA/050/00596/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00596/2017
Reserved on : 07.10.2025
Pronounced on : 11.11.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER (J)
HON'LE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
Sanjay Kumar, Son of Sri Bindeshwari Prasad, Resident of Mohallah-
Ashok Nagar, Road No. 1-H, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020,
Ex. Postal Assistant, Bankipur Head Post office, Patna-800004 (Bihar).
........Applicant.
- By Advocate(s) :- Shri M.P. Dixit
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Director General of Post,
Ministry of Communication, Department of Post, Sanchar
Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna-800001.
3. The Director, Postal Service (HQ.), Office of the Chief Post
Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna-800001.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Patna Division, Patna-
800004 (Bihar).
5. The Director, Postal Accounts, GPO Campus, Patna-800001
(Bihar).
6. The Senior Post Master, Bankipur Head Post Office, Patna-
800004 (Bihar).
.......Respondents.
By Advocate(s) :- Shri Radhika Raman, Addl. Standing Counsel
SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone=
4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=
20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
KABI
Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-2- OA/050/00596/2017
ORDER
Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M.:- This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
"(i) That Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order of dismissal from service dated 26.07.2017 as contained in Annexure A/4 passed by the Respondent No. 7.
(ii) That Your Lordships may further be pleased to direct/command the Respondents to re-instate the applicant in service henceforth and pay the salary from the date of dismissal from service up to the re-instatement in service along with statutory interest.
(iii) That Your Lordships may further graciously be pleased to direct/command the respondents to accord/grant all consequential benefits in favour of the Applicant.
(iv) Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the Applicant.
(v) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the appellate order dated 24.01.2018 issued by the respondents as contained in Annexure A/6. [Inserted in pursuance of order dated 03.03.2020 in MA No. 74/2020]"
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the applicant, are as follows:-
(i) The applicant was initially appointed as Postal Assistant on 01.07.1997 and after successful training he was posted at Nawada Head Post Office on 27.09.1997 under Gaya Postal Division. While serving at Gaya he was transferred to Patna Postal Division under Rule 38 of P&T Manual vide order dated 16.01.2001.
(ii) It is alleged by the applicant that while working at Bankipur Head Post Office, Patna, respondent no. 4 removed him from service under Rule 19(ii) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vide order dated 23/24.09.2004 (Annexure A/1) without holding any enquiry for the allegation that his mark sheet of Intermediate, on the basis of which he procured appointment, is fake.
SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-3- OA/050/00596/2017 For the same allegation the respondents have also referred the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation and a separate case before CBI Court has also been instituted.
(iii) Aggrieved by his removal order he approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 715/2004 which was allowed in December, 2006 (Annexure A/2) with liberty to the respondents to initiate departmental proceeding if they so desire and after reinstatement and joining of applicant, they have been given further liberty to place the applicant under suspension, if required. The applicant was then reinstated in service w.e.f. 20.02.2007 [Annexure A/2(a)] and subsequently without issuing any charge sheet against him, the applicant was placed under suspension by respondent no. 4 vide order dated 05.06.2007 [Annexure- A/2(b)] under contemplation of departmental enquiry.
(iv) It is further submitted that after placing the applicant under suspension, the respondent no. 4 has issued one charge sheet dated 10.08.2007 [Annexure - A/2(c)] for the allegation of submission of fake mark sheet of Intermediate for procuring appointment. One Enquiry officer was then appointed who after full-fledged enquiry submitted his report on 04.03.2010 [Annexure A/2(d)] holding that the allegations/charges leveled against the applicant are not established/proved. Thereafter, one disagreement notice on 27.02.2013 [Annexure A/2(e)] has been issued after about more than three years from the submission of Inquiry report, by Respondent No. 4 against which the applicant submitted his explanation on 15.03.2013 [Annexure A/2(f)], but no order has been passed in the said departmental proceeding without any rhyme and reason.
(iv) The applicant has further alleged that during pendency of the said departmental proceeding, the respondent no. 4 extended the period of suspension vide order dated 05.06.2017; and again from time to time vide various orders as mentioned in para 4.7 of the OA. Subsistence allowance has been enhanced from 50% to 70%. These extension orders, according to the applicant, are bad in law and contrary to the judicial pronouncements since after conclusion of enquiry proceeding by IO there is nothing before respondent no. 4 to continue the suspension but the same was extended lastly on 20.07.2016.
SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-4- OA/050/00596/2017
(v) The applicant being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders of extension of suspension, filed OA No. 552 of 2016 before this Tribunal which was disposed of on 05.09.2016 (Annexure A/3) whereby three weeks' time was granted to the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceeding and pass a reasoned and speaking order failing which suspension will deemed to have been revoked after passing of three weeks' time. The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merit of the OA or the departmental proceeding. After the said order, though the respondents passed an order on 23.09.2016 revoking the suspension order but no speaking/reasoned order was passed as per direction of the Tribunal.
(vi) It is further alleged by the applicant that he has unnecessarily and irrationally been kept under suspension since 05.06.2007 to 23.09.2016 for more than 9 years but no formal order treating the entire period of suspension as on duty has been passed which causes irreparable loss to the applicant including the annual increments, promotions, MACPs etc. which is not only bad in law, arbitrary, unjust, punitive but also against the settled principle of law.
(vii) The applicant while referring to the submission of the respondents mentioned in para-3 of the order dated 05.09.2016 in OA No. 552 of 2016 that ''as per instruction disciplinary proceeding is in final stage and the respondents are going to take decision very shortly'' has submitted that intention of the respondents is to humiliate and harass the applicant by any means as more than 9 months have elapsed but no final stage has come yet.
(viii) The applicant again approached this Tribunal in OA No. 362 of 2017 praying to declare the impugned action of the respondent no. 4 in not passing final order in the disciplinary proceeding initiated on 10.08.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against the principle of undue delay and also contrary to his own undertaking given before this Tribunal as evident from para-3 of the order dated 05.09.2016 and also to treat the entire period of suspension from 05.06.2007 upto to its revocation i.e. 23.09.2016 as on duty for all purposes including full salary along with statutory interest upon arrears amount. It is submitted that in the said OA notices have been issued on 28.06.2017 but no reply has been filed and only to frustrate the aforesaid prayer of applicant, the respondent SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-5- OA/050/00596/2017 No. 4 has passed the impugned dismissal order without appreciating the facts, findings of IO dated 04.03.2010 and reply of applicant. The applicant has also alleged that the impugned action of respondent no. 4 is also bad in law for the reason that he has not disclosed the reason for inordinate delay for more than 10 years from the date of issuance of very charge sheet dated 10.08.2007 while taking final decision and therefore in view of various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned in para-9 of the OA the entire proceeding including the impugned punishment order of dismissal from service is fit to be quashed and set aside on the ground of inordinate delay itself. The appeal filed by the applicant on 18.08.2017 has also been rejected vide appellate order dated 24.01.2018 in OA No. 362/2017 (Annexure A/6 to MA 74/2020). Hence, the OA.
3. The respondents in their written statement have submitted that the applicant secured his appointment on the basis of the marksheet of I.A 1990 purported to have been issued by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (hereinafter referred to as BIEC), Patna bearing Roll Code PA No. 1119 with 777 marks. It is also submitted by the respondents that the Chief PMG, Bihar Circle, Patna reported vide his letter dated 26.08.2003 that the above mark-sheet is forged. The Principal, B.N. College, Patna has also reported vide his letter dated 08.08.2003 that the applicant had secured 517 marks in the said examination. The then Secretary, BIEC, Patna Shri Naga Ram has also mentioned in his letter dated 13.02.2004 that the above mark sheet is wrong and false.
The respondents have further mentioned that the applicant has two sets of mark sheets, i.e. 517 marks and 777 marks which is revealed from his letters dated 11.01.2003 and 07.05.2004. The SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-6- OA/050/00596/2017 applicant has also mentioned in his application dated 19.12.2003 that mark-sheet containing 777 marks is the fresh mark-sheet on the basis of which he was appointed. In this way the applicant was alleged to have used the mark-sheet for securing his appointment and continuing as Govt. servant with the knowledge that the mark sheet and the documents based on that mark-sheet submitted by him were not genuine. On the basis of report of three aforementioned officers the applicant was charge sheeted for major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vide office memo dated 10/16.08.2007 in which a detailed enquiry was also made under departmental rule.
The enquiry officer did not prove the charges leveled against the applicant and disciplinary authority issued a disagreement letter dated 27.02.2013 and served the same to the applicant with a copy of the inquiry report for submission of his defence. Accordingly, the applicant was punished with dismissal from service vide memo dated 26.07.2017 under the departmental rule. It is submitted by the respondents that the appeal preferred by the applicant before the DPS(HQ), Bihar Circle, Patna is to be decided. The respondents have accordingly prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. In his rejoinder, the applicant has denied the contention of the respondents and more or less reiterated the submissions as made in the OA.
SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-7- OA/050/00596/2017
5. Reply to rejoinder has also been filed by the respondents denying the averments of the applicant made in the rejoinder.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record carefully.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant during hearing mainly argued on the basis of pleadings made in the OA.
Learned counsel for the respondents has filed written argument in which four judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been referred to in support of his contention that any appointment obtained by fraud is void ab initio and the employee has no legal right to continue in service. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant would have been qualified even if his actual marks (517) were considered is not tenable and baseless because once it is established that the marksheet used for securing appointment was fake, the entire selection process in his case stands vitiated. In this regard, he has referred to the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav [(2003) 3 SCC 437] wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that suppression or misrepresentation of materials facts at the time of recruitment justified termination, irrespective of later merit or qualification. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the documentary evidence from both the issuing institution (B.N. SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-8- OA/050/00596/2017 College) and the examination body (BIEC) conclusively established that the marksheet containing 777 marks was forged and that the due process was followed in the disciplinary proceeding before order of dismissal was passed, the OA is fit to be dismissed.
8.1 After hearing the rival parties and going through the records we have considered the matter in its entirety. We find that the issues to be decided are as follows:
(A) Whether the allegation that the applicant has submitted a forged marks sheet been established?
(B) Whether the applicant has suppressed or misrepresented the facts with regard to his marks sheet that is alleged to be fake?
(C) Whether the order by which the applicant was dismissed from service, following disciplinary proceedings, should be interdicted by the Tribunal on the ground that the charge-sheet does not contain the name of the key witness to prove the basis of allegation against the charged official?
8.2 We observe that the applicant has not concealed the fact with regard to depositing the two sets of mark sheets, one containing 517 marks and the other containing 777 marks. It is also submitted by him that he challenged the 517 marks that he accepts to have been issued in his name. He has claimed that the marks shown therein to have been secured by him was below his expectation. He challenged SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-9- OA/050/00596/2017 the said marks sheet and sought scrutiny of the record and papers.
Subsequently, he was granted 777 marks on scrutiny of his record.
He was appointed on the basis of fresh mark sheet containing 777 marks issued by BIEC, Patna.
8.3 The enquiry officer appointed by the respondents found the allegation as not proved. But the disciplinary authority disagreed and submitted the disagreement note. The applicant was served these papers and he responded denying the allegation.
8.4 It is quite ironical that Shri Naga Ram, Secretary, BIEC, Patna or his representative from his office who would have been competent to either support or controvert the above mentioned claim of the charged official (applicant) has not been made witnesses though the applicant has been charge sheeted on the basis of letter dated 13.02.2004 issued by the said Shri Naga Ram as is evident from Annexure-IV to the Memorandum dated 10.08.2007 (Annexure-2).
The said point raised by the applicant in his appeal dated 18.08.2017 has not been satisfactorily replied to by the appellate authority vide his order dated 24.01.2018 (Annexure A/6 to MA No. 74/2020). The appellate authority has simply mentioned that examination of Shri Naga Ram is not mandatory as the document has been exhibited by Shri Shambhu (SW-3) authenticating the contents of the letter issued by Shri Naga Ram. Shri Naga Ram is the Secretary, BIEC, Patna who has issued the letter and the SW-3 Shri Shambhu is APMG (Vigilance) SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-10- OA/050/00596/2017 of the office of Chief PMG Bihar Circle, Patna who is the recipient of the document/ letter issued by the official of BIEC. It is beyond comprehension that the said document and the officer issuing the letter is not being examined but on the basis of the testimony of the recipient, the letter is presumed to be true. The recipient is not even a staff of issuing office.
8.5 The principle of natural justice has been violated as the charged officer cannot ascertain and cross-examine this witness Shri Shambhu (SW-3) about the authenticity of his claim about the fresh marks sheet containing 777 marks as against the previous pre-
scrutiny marks of 517. The officials of BIEC who have issued the letter are the only competent persons to testify on this point and the recipients of the letter like SW-3 are in no position to do the same. Hence, it can be concluded that appellate authority has erred in recording such finding.
8.6 We also note that the Inquiry Officer in his enquiry report dated 04.03.2010 observed that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor P.O. made efforts to produce the selection merit chart of P.A. cadre for the year in which the charged officer was appointed in PA cadre in Gaya Dn. that is also the substantial material of the allegation against the charged officer.
8.7 We further observe that in the absence of production of documentary evidence which goes against the appointment of the SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-11- OA/050/00596/2017 charged officer as PA in Gaya Dn. the I.O. could not prove the charges levelled against the Applicant. It is also undisputed that respondent no. 4 issued the disagreement notice on 27.02.2013, i.e. after about more than three years from the submission of Inquiry Report.
9. In view of above observation, we hold that the impugned action of the respondents from the stage of issuing charge memo is bad in law. In Roop Singh Negi (2009) v. Punjab National Bank Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that in departmental inquiries proposing major punishment, the recording of evidence is mandatory. An inquiry that imposes a major penalty without recording witness evidence is "vitiated and non-est". 9.1 In a departmental inquiry, if the charge memo does not properly quote or list the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, then this violates the principles of natural justice. 9.2 The charge memo must contain specific details of the charges, including a list of witnesses and documents that the respondent department plans to rely on to prove the charges. This allows the charged employee to adequately prepare his defense. Withholding the names of witnesses from the charge memo violates this principle by denying the employee the opportunity to understand the full nature of the evidence against them and cross-examine the witnesses produced by the department.
SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-12- OA/050/00596/2017 9.3 In departmental proceedings involving major penalties, it is mandatory to prove documents through the testimony of witnesses.
Merely producing documents is not enough. Evidence and documents relied upon by the department must be proved by examining the relevant witnesses, who are then subject to cross- examination by the charged employee if he feels necessary. 9.4 When an inquiry is conducted in a manner that disregards these fundamental principles of natural justice, then it will be concluded that this is a serious procedural irregularity. This is violation of principle of natural justice, and any resulting punishment is liable to be quashed.
9.5 The dismissal from service of applicant vide order dated 26.07.2017 issued by respondent no. 4 pursuant to disciplinary proceeding initiated on 10.08.2007 is also bad in law on the ground of inordinate delay as also contrary to his own undertaking given before this Tribunal as is evident from para-3 of the order dated 05.09.2016 in OA No. 552 of 2016. This Tribunal has not been apprised of the fate of the so-called CBI case that has been instituted in this regard.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order of dismissal from service dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure A/4) as well as the order of appellate authority dated 24.01.2018 that is Annexure A/6 to MA 74/2020 are quashed and set aside.
SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-13- OA/050/00596/2017 The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith and grant all consequential benefits that flow from such re-instatement in service.
However, the salary from the date of dismissal from service upto the date of re-instatement will be decided by the respondents as per the rule and procedure. The respondents will also be at liberty to conduct the departmental proceedings in accordance with rules and procedure from the stage of correcting the charge memo as indicated above by putting the competent and relevant witnesses to prove the charge and affording the opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine them to prove his case.
11. In terms of the above direction, the OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari)
Member (A) Member(J)
Srk.
SURYAROOP Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
KABI Date: 2025.11.11 15:28:11+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0