Dushyant Singh vs Union Of India

st
Reserved on 01 September, 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*

Original Application No. 998 of 2008


th
Allahabad this the 14 day of October, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member-A


Dushyant Singh, aged about 50 years S/o Shri Ganga Ram Singh, Working as
T.G.T. (English), Teacher in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mariahu District-
Jaunpur-222 161, Permanent R/o Village & P.O. Kolana District-Mirzapur (U.P.)
Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dixit

Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources &
Development, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

2. The Joint Commissioner (Personnel), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, A-28,
Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 110 048.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, (Regional Office),
rd
Lekhraj Panna, 3 Floor, Sector-2, Vikash Nagar, Lucknow-226 022.

4. The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mariahu, District – Jaunpur –
222 161.
Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Krishna Dutt Mishra

O R D E R

The applicant has filed the O.A under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, seeking the following relief(s): -
“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned Memorandum of Show Cause dated 10.05.2007, order
dated 17.10.2007 both passed by the Respondent No.3, as well as Office
Order (Appellate Order) dated 08.07.2008 pessed by the Respondent
MANISH MEHROTRA
No.2(ANNEXURES-A-1, A-2 & A-3 respectively to Compilation No. 'I' of
this petition).
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to regularise the period from 29.10.2005 to
31.01.2007 as on duty and to pay full pay and allowances to the petitioner
for the said period with interest thereon 12% per annum, within a period
as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal and further they be directed to
count the aforesaid period for all practical purposes.

2

(iii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the facts and
circumstances of this case, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and
proper.
(iv) to award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that
the applicant vide an order dated 14.03.2005 was placed under
suspension by the Respondent No.3 under Rule-10 (1) of CCS(CCA)
Rules, 1965, on the ground that the disciplinary proceeding is pending
against him. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order by filing an OA
No. 639 of 2005 before this Hon'ble Tribunal. This Tribunal passed an
order on dated 31.05.2005 staying the effect and operation of the
aforesaid suspension order dated 14.03.2005. The applicant served the
copy of aforesaid Order upon the respondents vide letter dated
01.06.2005. The applicant after availing the summer vacation reported
himself for duty in person vide joining report dated 01.07.2005, which the
respondents did not accept and as such the same was sent through
registered post. However, he was not allowed to join his duties. Vide
order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the Respondent No.3, the said
suspension order was revoked. The aforesaid order of revocation of
suspension dated 28.10.2005 was served upon the applicant by
Respondent No.4 vide its covering letter dated 17.11.2005, which was
delivered upon the applicant on 24.11.2005. The applicant was also

served on the same day. an order dated 07.11.2005 passed by
Respondent No.3 stipulating that the petitioner shall be paid full pay and
allowances from the date of interim order i.e. 31.05.2005 instead of date
MANISH MEHROTRA
of suspension order i.e. 14.03.2005. The aforesaid O. A. No.639 of 2005
filed by the applicant came to be allowed vide final Order dated
09.11.2005 quashing the aforesaid suspension order, entitling applicant
to full pay and allowances for the period from 14.03.2005 onwards. The
aforesaid Order of this Tribunal was served upon the respondents vide
letter dated 16.12.2005. The respondents instead of complying the Order

3

of this Tribunal, issued two letters dated 27.12.2005 and 29.12.2005.
Both the aforesaid letters were delivered upon the applicant on
02.01.2006 wherein in the 1st letter they informed the applicant to join
his duty with reference to letter dated 07.11.2005 issued by the
respondent No. 3. The applicant vide representation dated 19.01.2006
prayed for compliance of the judgement and order passed by this Hon'ble
Tribunal dated 09.11.2005. The respondents vide letter dated
21.02.2006 directed the applicant to join his duty with reference to its
letter dated 28.10.2005. The applicant reported for joining the duty vide
fresh joining report dated 14.03.2006 with reference to his earlier joining
report dated 01.07.2005 and subsequent letters dated 16.12.2005,
04.01.2006 and 19.01.2006 respectively. Thereafter, on 23.03.2006, the
respondent No. 3 observed that the applicant shall be allowed full pay and
allowances from 14.03.2005 i.e. date of suspension order. After few days
of joining, the respondents again transferred the applicant from Jaunpur
to Kannauj vide order dated 29.03.2006, which was served on the
applicant on 04.04.2006. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed O.A. No.
542/2006, in which this Tribunal passed an Order dated 12.01.2007
directing the respondents to maintain status quo under further orders.
Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 19.07.2006 kept in
abeyance the aforesaid transfer order. The applicant again reported for
duty vide joining report dated 31.01.2007 and the respondent No. 4
allowed the applicant to join his duties w.e.f. 01.02.2007. The applicant
joined his duty with effect from 01.02.2007 and has been discharging his
duties with full devotion, as a result whereof he gave 100% result of his
MANISH MEHROTRA
class. The respondents issued Memorandum of Show Cause dated
10.05.2007. The respondent No.3 issued an order dated 17.10.2007
treating the aforesaid period i.e. from 29.10.2005 to 31.01.2007 as break
causing interruption in service, holding the applicant as having remained
absent from duty wilfully during the said period and further holding
applicant not entitled for full pay and allowances for the said period. The

4

applicant against the aforesaid order submitted an appeal on dated
02.11.2007. However, the Appellate Authority i.e. Respondent No.2
passed an order (appellate order) dated 08.07.2008, rejecting the appeal
of the applicant dated 02.11.2007 (treating the same as a representation)
upholding the aforesaid orders of Respondent No.3. Aggrieved with the
aforesaid orders of respondents, the applicant has filed the present O.A.
4. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating therein that
vide order dated 14.03.2005, the applicant was put under suspension
under sub rule (1) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The
applicant challenged the suspension order by way of O.A. No. 639/2005
and this Tribunal stayed the operation of suspension order vide Order
dated 31.05.2005. Thereafter, the competent authority vide order dated
28.10.2005 revoked the suspension order. After the stay order, the
Applicant was required to immediately report for duty and formally
assume charge, however, instead of doing so, he merely sent a letter
dated 01.06.2005 through counsel seeking salary and chosen not to
report during the intervening summer vacation, and subsequently
forwarded a joining report dated 01.07.2005 by registered post without
personally reporting. the suspension was revoked on 28.10.2005 and the

Applicant was reposted to JNV, Mariahu. The suspension period from
14.03.2005 to 28.10.2005 was treated as "on duty" and full pay and
allowances were released. Thereafter, the applicant was repeatedly
directed to regularize his position through letters dated 17.11.2005,
21.11.2005, 27.12.2005 and 21.02.2006, followed by final opportunity
memorandum dated 25.09.2006 and reminders dated 10.11.2006 and
MANISH MEHROTRA
19.01.2007, but he failed to comply. The applicant alleged visit to the
Vidyalaya on 14.03.2006 is of no consequence, as the record shows that
he neither completed the mandatory joining formalities nor waited for
directions of the competent authority, and no attendance or formal
assumption of charge is reflected on record. His subsequent
representations to higher authorities also do not amount to lawful

5

resumption of duty in service jurisprudence. Despite repeated
opportunities given by the Samiti, the applicant failed to assume charge
validly earlier and even after the final opportunity memorandum dated
25.09.2006 (received on 07.10.2006) and subsequent reminders dated
10.11.2006 and 19.01.2007, he submitted his joining in person only on
31.01.2007, whereupon he was permitted to assume charge w.e.f.
01.02.2007. Since the applicant remained unauthorizedly absent from
29.10.2005 to 31.01.2007, memo dated 10.05.2007 was issued and,
after considering his reply, a reasoned order dated 17.10.2007 applying
FR-17(1) was passed, which was affirmed in appeal on 08.07.2008. The
respondents have submitted that no injustice has been done with the
applicant hence, they have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on
record and considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the
parties.

6. The subject matter of O.A. regarding challenging the impugned
memorandum dated 10.05.2007 and subsequent order passed by the
respondents’ authority dated 17.10.2007 and 08.07.2008 vide which the
respondents’ department has declared the period from 29.10.2005 to
31.01.2007 as interruption/break in service under FR-17 sub rule (1) as
well as Fundamental Rule 17-A sub rule (3). The submission of applicant
that the said period is on account of pendency of O.A. before this Tribunal
and after granting interim protection dated 31.05.2005 against the
impugned order of suspension, in O.A. No. 639/2005, the O.A. was finally
MANISH MEHROTRA
decided on 09.11.2005 with direction that the applicant is entitled to full
pay and allowances for the period from 14.03.2005 onwards. From
perusal of the impugned order as well as records of the case, it is
apparent that after getting the interim order dated 31.05.2005, the said
order was sent through his counsel vide letter dated 01.06.2005
(annexure A-6) addressed to Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya

6

Samiti, Lucknow Region, Lucknow while the applicant was posted at
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mariahu, Jaunpur and did not report for
duty before the Principal of aforesaid Vidyalaya. Surprisingly, the
applicant has annexed one letter dated 01.07.2005 vide which specific
averment has been made in reference to order dated 31.05.2005, the
applicant is rejoining the duty after availing summer vacation. However.
the said letter was again sent vide registered post on 01.07.2005 to the
Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mariahu, Jaunpur as well as to
Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Lucknow Region, Lucknow.
Meanwhile, the suspension order of the applicant was revoked vide order
dated 28.10.2005 by respondent No. 3, which was duly communicated to
the applicant vide letter dated 17.11.2005. Subsequently, an observation
was made by the respondents that from the date of suspension order till
revocation order dated 28.10.2005, the applicant would be entitled for full
pay and allowances from the date when the suspension order has been
stayed. There is no dispute with regard to payment of said period.
Thereafter, several other communications were sent to respondent No. 3
regarding joining on interim order. However, the applicant was again
sent a letter dated 27.12.2005 to the Principal – respondent No. 4
regarding joining the duty and finally the applicant has joined his duties
vide letter dated 31.01.2007. The relevant part of the same is quoted
herein below: -
“ Mariahu
Dated 31-01-07
To,
MANISH MEHROTRA
The Principal/ Shri D. P. Pandey
J N V Mariahu, Jaunpur
Ref: F NO. 10-2 (360)/NVS (LR) Admn/07/41700 Dated 19-01-07
Sub: Regarding Joining.

7

Sir,
With reference to all the Correspondence made earlier along with
present reference I am reporting for duty once again. Kindly, acknowledge
my presence in the attendance register and pay my held up salary along
with 12% rate of interest today itself.
If it is not accepted it will be assumed that all the person.
Concerned with it are willfully trying to harass the applicant with malafide
intention as noticed by the Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad.
Truly yours
Dushyant Singh TGT (English)
J.N.V. Mariahu, Jaunpur

Allowed to join the duty from 01.02.07
Report to R/o and done on guideline from the concern authority.
Principal
Sd./- 01.02.2007
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya
Mariahu, Jaunpur.”

From the above letter, it is clear that applicant has given joining
report on 31.01.2007 to the Principal, which was subsequently allowed on
01.02.2007.
7. Meanwhile another development took place as the applicant was
transferred to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kannauj vide transfer order
dated 09.03.2006, which was challenged before this Tribunal by way of
O.A. No. 542/2006 and this Tribunal vide Order dated 12.01.2007 has
protected the applicant by passing status quo order. The status quo order
is quoted herein below: -
“For this reason, as requested by the applicant I hereby direct that status
MANISH MEHROTRA
quo as on today should be maintained. In other words, if the applicant
has not yet been relieved from his post, the transfer may be stayed until
further orders issued by the Tribunal. The respondents are welcome if
they want the disposal of the case expeditiously, they may file counter
affidavit in this case within 04 weeks. If they want the order of status quo
to be vacated earlier, they can file short counter affidavit as to why this
status quo may be vacated and decided expeditiously.”

8

Therefore, from the aforesaid fact, it is evident that neither the
applicant has actually joined his duty at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Mariahu, Jaunpur nor he has worked there though numbers of litigations
were filed not only with regard to transfer but, also against the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The relevant Fundamental
Rule 17 (1) as well as Fundamental Rule 17 (A) (iii) are quoted herein
below: -
“ F.R. 17. (1) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules
and to the provision of sub-rule (2), an officer shall begin to draw the pay
and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date
when he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as
soon as he ceases to discharge those duties:
Provided that an officer who is absent from duty without any authority
shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of such
absence.
F.R. 17-A Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 27 of the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, a period of an unauthorized absence-
. . . . . . .
(iii) in the case of an individual employee, remaining absent
unauthorizedly or deserting the post,
shall be deemed to cause an interruption or break in the service of the
employee, unless otherwise decided by the competent authority for the
purpose of leave travel concession, quasi-permanency and eligibility for
appearing in departmental examinations, for which a minimum period of
continuous service is required.”
The rule is very clear that absent from duty without any authority,
the employee shall not be allowed to any pay and allowances during the
period of such absence and further clarified under Fundamental Rule 17-A
(iii) that such absence deemed to cause an interruption or break in
MANISH MEHROTRA
service of the employee.
8. From the aforesaid facts as well as from the record, we are in
considered opinion that the applicant did not join the duty at Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mariahu, Jaunpur in spite of the fact that the order
was served through his counsel to respondent No. 3 and not to Principal –

9

respondent No. 4. He has taken suo moto leave of summer vacation and
even after he had been made communication to respondent No. 3 in spite
of Principal – respondent No. 4. Further from perusal of Order dated
12.01.2007 passed in O.A. No. 542/2006, the transfer order dated
09.03.2006 was considered by this Tribunal and the Tribunal directed to
maintain the status quo, as on today. From the record, it is evident that
he did not join the duty, therefore, such plea that by virtue of the interim
order dated 12.01.2007 he did not join the duty, cannot benefited the
applicant seeking quashing of impugned order vide which the period from
29.10.2005 to 31.01.2007 declared as interruption/break in service.
9. The applicant's contention regarding his rejoining duty vide letter
dated 01.07.2005 after allegedly availing summer vacation is belied by
the fact that he failed to physically report to his place of posting. Even
after the revocation of the suspension order vide order dated 28.10.2005,
which was duly communicated to the applicant on 17.11.2005, the
applicant failed to report for duty and only joined as late as 31.01.2007.
10. From the facts available on record, it is evident that the applicant
did not actually assume charge and discharge duties at Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mariahu, Jaunpur pursuant to the transfer order. On
the contrary, the record indicates that he remained away from duty and
ultimately joined the said place only on 01.02.2007. Thus, mere pendency
of litigation challenging the transfer order cannot, by itself, be treated as
equivalent to actual discharge of duties or as conferring authority upon
the applicant to remain absent from duty.
MANISH MEHROTRA
11. The reliance placed by the applicant upon the interim order dated
12.01.2007 passed in O.A. No. 542/2006 is also misplaced. By the said
order, the Tribunal directed the parties to maintain status quo as
obtaining on that date. The said interim order neither granted any
permission to the applicant to remain absent from duty nor authorized
him to refrain from joining or discharging his duties. An interim order

10

directing maintenance of status quo cannot be construed as an order
granting leave or otherwise regularizing an absence which was
unauthorised in law. In any event, the said order was passed only on
12.01.2007 and, therefore, cannot retrospectively validate the applicant’s
absence from 29.10.2005 to 12.01.2007.
12. The position becomes further clear from the provisions of
Fundamental Rule 17(1), which provide that an officer shall draw pay and
allowances attached to the tenure of a post with effect from the date on
which he assumes the duties of that post and shall cease to draw the
same when he ceases to discharge such duties. The proviso further
stipulates that an officer who is absent from duty without authority shall
not be entitled to pay and allowances during the period of such absence.
13. Further, Fundamental Rule 17-A (iii) specifically provides that, in
the case of an individual employee remaining absent unauthorizedly or
deserting the post, such absence shall be deemed to cause an
interruption or break in the service of the employee, unless otherwise
decided by the competent authority for the limited purposes specified
therein. Thus, unauthorised absence has a distinct consequence in service
law and cannot be converted into a period of duty merely on account of
the pendency of proceedings relating to the transfer order.
14. In the present case, the applicant has not been able to
demonstrate that, during the period in question, he had either actually
discharged duties at the transferred place or had obtained any lawful
order of the competent authority permitting him to remain away from
MANISH MEHROTRA
duty. The fact that several proceedings were instituted by him challenging
the transfer and subsequent disciplinary action does not, by itself,
establish that his absence from duty was authorized. Litigation against a
transfer order and lawful assumption of duty are two distinct matters.
15. The applicant’s further contention that, in view of the interim order
dated 12.01.2007 in O.A. No. 542/2006, he could not be treated as

11

having failed to join duty, also cannot be accepted. The order of status
quo did not retrospectively regularise the period preceding 12.01.2007,
nor did it confer upon the applicant any right to remain absent without
obtaining appropriate permission or leave. Moreover, the record shows
that the applicant actually joined duty only on 01.02.2007. Therefore, the
period up to 31.01.2007 cannot be treated as a period during which the
applicant was on authorized duty merely because an interim order had
been passed on 12.01.2007. It is also significant that the applicant has
not placed on record any subsequent order whereby the competent
authority specifically regularised the intervening period as duty or
otherwise condoned the absence for the purposes contemplated under
F.R. 17-A. In the absence of any such order, the statutory consequences
flowing from unauthorised absence cannot be avoided merely by referring
to the pendency of judicial proceedings.
16. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders
dated 10.05.2007 and 17.10.2007 treating the period from 29.10.2005 to
31.01.2007 as interruption/break in service, particularly when the
applicant admittedly did not join duty during the said period and there
was no order of the competent authority authorizing such absence. The
interim order dated 12.01.2007 does not alter this position.
Consequently, the challenge to the impugned orders dated 10.05.2007
and 17.10.2007 is devoid of merit. The applicant cannot derive any
benefit from the interim order dated 12.01.2007 passed in O.A. No. 542
of 2006 or from the Order dated 31.05.2005 in O.A. No. 639 of 2005 so
as to retrospectively legitimize the period of unauthorized absence
MANISH MEHROTRA
preceding that order. The O.A. therefore deserves to be dismissed.
17. In view of the above discussion, the O.A. is dismissed. No order as
to cost. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of.

(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judicial)

/M.M/