Full Judgment Text
$~68 to 70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6467/2017
D.C. MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Mr.
Shitanshu & Ms. Mishika Gupta, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 6481/2017
D.C. MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH &
ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Mr.
Shitanshu & Ms. Mishika Gupta, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 6496/2017
D.C. MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH &
ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Mr.
Shitanshu & Ms. Mishika Gupta, Advs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.05.2026
15:40:21
W.P.(C) 6467/2017, W.P.(C) 6481/2017 & W.P.(C) 6496/2017 Page 1 of 5
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 29.04.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The order of the Tribunal which is under challenge in these writ
petitions at the instance of the applicant before the Tribunal in OA
4022/2012, OA 4023/2012 and OA 905/2014 reads as under:
“The applicant, who has filed these Original Applications, appears
in person seeks adjournment to argue the matter on some other
date.
2. It is seen from record that these are very old matters and on
one pretext or the other have been adjourned day after day.
Therefore, no further adjournment is allowed.
3. I have gone through the files and the following clearly are
made out:-
(1) No one in his peer group wants to work with the
applicant (Annexure R-4 makes it abundantly clear).
(2) Even the non ministerial staff including Sr. non
ministerial staff such as UDCs of the office found it
difficult to work with the applicant. In fact, it appears that
he was violent with some of them.
(3) The applicant, though a Senior Scientist, has not
behaved in a manner behaving his status/qualification.
(4) Consistently he has avoided duty and this has led to
his adverse APAR’s.
4. Therefore, all these OA Nos.4022/2012, 4023/2012 and OA
905/2014 are dismissed.
5. At this stage the applicant came up with a submission that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.05.2026
15:40:21
W.P.(C) 6467/2017, W.P.(C) 6481/2017 & W.P.(C) 6496/2017 Page 2 of 5
he would like to hire a counsel. Such a request at this stage cannot
be entertained and hence was rejected. Moreso, as it is clearly a
ploy to avoid an adverse order.
6. I would have imposed a heavy cost upon the applicant for
wasting the time of his superiors and peers as well as this court.
However, it appears to me that there is, perhaps, some underlying
reason why a qualified person should behave like this. Therefore,
let a copy of this order be sent to Director General, I.C.A.R., so
that he may get the applicant examined through a medical board in
a Government hospital to ascertain whether the applicant needs any
help for mental disabilities. No costs.”
2. To say the least, the order makes for very unhappy reading. The
mere fact that the OAs may have been pending for some time does not
empower the Tribunal to act in pique and pass an order without any
comprehensive consideration of the merits of the case.
3. We find that even a request by the petitioner to engage a
counsel was brushed aside. The concluding sentence of para 6 of the
order, which we feel hesitant to even repeat, is possibly its most
unfortunate part.
4. Courts, and high judicial Tribunals such as the Central
Administrative Tribunal, are expected to exercise balance and
restraint. The Tribunal had no authority, whatsoever, to doubt the
mental stability of the petitioner. The Tribunal ought to have borne in
mind the fact that a judicial order leaves its imprint on the lives of the
persons involved much after the ink on the order has dried, and that
expressing doubts regarding the mental stability of the litigant before
it may have lasting socio-personal effects.
5. At the same time, we are sanguine that this order is an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.05.2026
15:40:21
W.P.(C) 6467/2017, W.P.(C) 6481/2017 & W.P.(C) 6496/2017 Page 3 of 5
aberration.
6. Though Mr. Gagan Mathur, learned Counsel for the respondent,
did advance some arguments, given the nature of the order which has
been passed, we are left with no option but to set it aside and remand
these OAs for fresh consideration to the Tribunal. We expect the
consideration to be dispassionate and on the merits of the matter.
7. The parties may appear before the Tribunal on 14 May 2026.
8. We have not expressed any view on the merits of the matter.
All issues would be open for argument before the Tribunal when the
matter reaches.
9. The parties would not seek any adjournment before the Tribunal
on the date fixed.
10. As the OAs are of 2012 and 2014, nearly 13 years as on date,
and the petitioner has also compulsorily retired from service, we
request the Tribunal to deal with these OAs with due expedition,
preferably within three months when the matter is listed before the
Tribunal.
11. The impugned order is quashed and aside.
12. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
13. Both sides would be permitted to place written submissions on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.05.2026
15:40:21
W.P.(C) 6467/2017, W.P.(C) 6481/2017 & W.P.(C) 6496/2017 Page 4 of 5
record not exceeding six pages each before the Tribunal to facilitate
hearing.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
APRIL 29, 2026/ dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.05.2026
15:40:21
W.P.(C) 6467/2017, W.P.(C) 6481/2017 & W.P.(C) 6496/2017 Page 5 of 5