Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Kaushal Kumar vs Department Of Telecommunication on 3 November, 2025
-1- [ RA/050/00015/2025 (In OA/050/00512/2013)]
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
RA/050/00015/2025
[ Arising out of OA/050/00512/2023]
Date of Order: 03.11.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Kaushal Kumar (ITS, Staff No. 20862), Son of Late Tarkeshwar Prasad Jayaswal, Ex
Director (ADMN & HR) at Director general Telecom Headquarter, Ministry of
Communications, Department of Telecommunications, UIDAI Building, Bangla
Sahib Road, New Delhi-110001, Resident of Sharda House, Atardah, Kachchi
Pakki Road, PO-Ramna, District- Muzaffarpur-842002 (Bihar).
...........Applicant.
-Versus-
1. The Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar
Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Head of the Representation Committee related to periodical review of
Central Government Employees for strengthening of Administration under 56(J)
Cum Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Secretary (Telecom)-Cum- Chairman Digital Communications Commission,
Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunications, Government
of India, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Member (Services), Ministry of Communications, Department of
Telecommunications, Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110001.
5. The Deputy Director General (Personnel), Ministry of Communications,
Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan, 20,
Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.
6. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communications,
Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New
Delhi-110001.
.......... Respondents
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone=
4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=
Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=
20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP
KABI
KABI
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.11.13 11:00:50+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-2- [ RA/050/00015/2025 (In OA/050/00512/2013)]
ORDER
[ By Circulation ] Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M.:- This Review Application has been filed by the applicant to recall/review the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. OA/050/00512/2013 whereby the OA was dismissed. The operative portion of the order in said OA reads as follows:-
"9. We observe that the power to prematurely retire a government servant is one of the facets of the doctrine of pleasure incorporated in Article 310 of the Constitution of India. The object of premature retirement is to weed out the dead wood in order to maintain efficiency and initiative in the service. Generally speaking, Service Rules provide for premature retirement of a government servant on his completing a certain number of years of service or attaining the prescribed age after his entire service record is reviewed at that stage and a decision is taken whether he should be prematurely retired or continued further in service. This decision is taken on two counts: (a) Doubtful Integrity (b) Ineffectiveness.
In the instant case the applicant was arrested in his office chamber by CBI on 02.06.2010 while accepting the bribe amount and remained incarcerated till 02.07.2010 when he was enlarged on bail. The case is still reported to be pending as under trial. The officer was also put in the list of officers with doubtful integrity.
10. It is clear from the perusal of Presidential Order that the premature retirement of the applicant issued on 26.12.2022 vide Annexure A/1 has been said to be issued in public interest. The only mention of pending criminal proceedings is for the purposes of withholding DCRG and CVP. Thus this order of premature retirement cannot be said to be casting a stigma on the Government servant. So it will not be proper for this tribunal to treat it as an order of punishment, attracting provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.13 11:00:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-3- [ RA/050/00015/2025 (In OA/050/00512/2013)]
11. Further, it appears that out of 677 officers under review 10 officers were finally recommended for premature retirement so it cannot be alleged that the applicant has been singled out. Moreover, the procedure for completion of every stage of the review has been complied with before ultimately issuing the impugned order. The consideration of representation by the applicant against the said order has also been made. So, neither any violation of the principle of natural justice nor any procedural flaw is being observed in the instant case.
12. There is no levelling of a charge or imputation requiring an explanation from the government servant. While specific and clear charge of misconduct is the key factor that enters into the account where the order is one of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement by way of punishment, there is this difference that in the case of premature retirement, where overall service record regarding suitability or otherwise of such Member of service for further retention in the Service is examined and it is sufficient to furnish the background. A government servant who is prematurely retired does not lose any part of the benefit that he has earned during service. Thus, premature retirement differs both from dismissal and removal as it involves no penal consequences.
13. In view of the above observation, we have come to the conclusion that the decision of the respondents does not suffer from any such anomaly that will require the interference of this Tribunal and holds that this OA is fit to be dismissed. Accordingly, this OA is dismissed. No order as to costs."
2. The grounds taken by the applicant to review the above order of this Tribunal are as follows:-
(i) The only reason for retiring the applicant prematurely was taken by the respondents due to Prosecution Sanction in a CBI case lodged on 02.06.2010 and as such the applicant was treated as doubtful integrity although there appears no doubtful integrity in the APARs of the applicant during the entire service period.Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.13 11:00:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-4- [ RA/050/00015/2025 (In OA/050/00512/2013)]
(ii) No departmental proceeding has been initiated against the applicant except the CBI case instituted on 02.06.2010.
(iii) The legal and factual points taken by the applicant while assailing the impugned orders in the relevant paragraphs of the OA such as 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.22 and 4.25 and also in the rejoinder pleadings such as para-2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have not been appreciated in right and judicious manner which, according to the applicant, is serious error on the face of record.
(iv) The parameters and rules position for invoking Rule 56(j) as discussed by the Internal Committee on 18.10.2022 & 31.10.2022 has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal.
(v) The orders of Jabalpur Bench of the CAT in OA No. 200/471/2023 dated 07.05.2024 and Cuttack Bench of the CAT in OA No.260/00336/2023 cited by the applicant have not been taken into consideration by this Tribunal though the case of the applicant is on much better footing than the above cases.
3. We have gone through the review application. The review application does not indicate any apparent error on the face of record. There is no error of fact or law in the order and this Tribunal has made right interpretation of rules and dealt with each and every point raised by the applicant in OA. The orders of the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal namely Jabalpur Bench for OA No. 471/2023 & Cuttack Bench for OA No. 336/2023 are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant OA adjudicated by this bench. The Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.13 11:00:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-5- [ RA/050/00015/2025 (In OA/050/00512/2013)] Jabalpur Bench order dealt with the case of an applicant who was acquitted in the CBI cases registered against him whereas the order in Cuttack Bench dealt with the case of an applicant against whom a departmental proceeding was being conducted and the order of pre-
mature retirement was said to be used as subterfuge and short-cut to circumvent the process of conducting the departmental proceedings till its logical end.
4. The scope of review is very limited only to the extent of correcting self-evident errors. The present review application amounts to a request for re-hearing of the case which is not permissible in the light of ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Kumar Sengupta [2008(8) SCC 612 wherein Hon'ble Court has held as under:-
" The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are :
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.13 11:00:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-6- [ RA/050/00015/2025 (In OA/050/00512/2013)]
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier."
5. In the review, the Tribunal cannot go into its detailed reasoning and replace it with a new reasoning. That would amount to sitting in appeal over our own order, which is not permitted under law. In conclusion, since there is no apparent error on the face of record, the RA is disposed by circulation as not maintainable.
[Kumar Rajesh Chandra ] Administrative Member Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Judicial Member Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S= Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.13 11:00:50+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0