DIPANKAR DEY vs EASTERN RAILWAY

1 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
O.A. No. 350/1118/2025
M.A. No. 350/781/2025
Date of Hearing: 14.07.2026

Date of Order: 10.08.2026

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Hon’ble Mr. Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member

In the matter of:-

1. Dipankar Dey, son of late Kartick
Chandra Dey, aged about 46 years
(date of birth 10.10.1979), working as
Sr. Clerk, Andal, P.F. No.
50200097895, in pay of Rs. 33,900/-,
GP-2800/-, Level - 5, in the office of
Divisional Operations Manager (Coal),
Eastern Railway, Asansol Division and
residing at Rly. Qtr. No. 129/CD,
Traffic Colony, P.O.-Asansol, District
Paschim Bardhaman, PIN - 713 301.

2. Smt. Haimabati Dey, wife of late
Kartick Chandra Dey (ex-Railway
employee) and mother of petitioner No.
1, aged about 73 years (date of birth
10.08.1952) and residing at the same
address as petitioner No.1.


.........Applicants

-Versus-


1. Union of India, through General
Manager, Eastern Railway, 17, Netaji
Subhas Road, Kolkata 700 001.
2. Divisional Railway Manager,
Eastern Railway, Asansol Division,
Asansol, PIN - 713 301.
3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
Eastern Railway, Asansol Division,
Asansol, PIN - 713 301.
4. Divisional Operations Manager
(Coal), Eastern Railway, Asansol
Division, Asansol, PIN-713 301.
5. Md. Anwar Sajjad, Inquiry Officer,
working for gain as Traffic
Inspector/Controls/ER/ASN, Traffic
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha

2 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025

Control Office, Eastern Railway,
Asansol Division, DRM Building, P.O.-
Asansol, PIN 713301.

…….Respondents

For The Applicant(s): Mr. B. R. Das, Mr. K. K. Ghosh; Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. B. K. Banerjee; Standing Counsel

O R D E R
Per: Mr. Anindo Majumdar , Member (A)

Heard Ld. Counsel on both the sides.
2. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, initially
challenging the Major Penalty Charge Memorandum bearing No.
TM/Pass/2025(DD) dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure A/1) issued by
the Divisional Operations Manager (Coal), Eastern Railway,
Asansol (Respondent No. 4), as well as, Office Order No.
9/EO/Arrgt/I&C/OS/24 dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure A/2) issued
by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Asansol (Respondent
No. 3), whereby the promotion of Applicant No. 1 to the post of
Office Superintendent was withheld owing to the pendency of the
said D&AR proceedings.
2.1. During the pendency of this O.A., the Disciplinary Authority
had passed a final Order dated 08.08.2025 imposing the major
penalty of "Removal from Service without any compassionate
allowance and gratuity" upon Applicant No. 1 under Rule 6(viii) of
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha

3 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025

the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The
applicants had accordingly preferred M.A. No. 350/00781/2025
seeking leave to amend the prayer clause to challenge and quash
the removal order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure M/3 to the M.A.),
which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 25.09.2025.
2.2. The following relief(s) have been prayed for by the applicant in
the O.A.:-
“I. Rescind, recall, withdraw and quash and/or set aside the chargememo
issued to petitioner No. 1 in relation to petitioner No. 2 being Annexure-A1
for all intents and purpose.
II. Rescind, recall, withdraw and quash the remarks as respect the
petitioner No. 1 withholding the results of suitability so as to allow the
petitioner No. 1 promotion to the post of OS in Level-6 + 4200/-GP in T&C
Department w.e.f. the date of issue of the order i.e. 30.07.2024 with all
consequential benefits thereof.
III. Treat the declaration of petitioner No. 1 being Annexure-A7 submitted
before the Respondent No. 3 as "option' of petitioner No. 2 in accordance
with Section - V Widow Pass, Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986 (1993)
read with Rule 9 ibid vide Section 2.b., Rule 3.1.b and Advanced
Correction Slip No. 20, RS (Pass) Rules, 1986 (2nd Edition, 1993) and duly
allowed by Respondent No.3.
IV. Certify and transmit the entire records and papers pertaining to the
applicant's case to that after the causes shown thereof conscionable
justice may be done unto the applicant by way of grant of reliefs as
prayed for in I to III, above.
V. Pass such other order/orders and/or directions as deemed fit and
proper.
VI. Costs;”

2.3. In M.A. 350/781/2025, the applicant has prayed for the
following relief(s):-
“I. Pass orders quashing the order M3 being notice for removal for all
intents and purpose and pass ad interim orders;
II. Staying the operation of the order M3 till disposal of the OA for all
intents and purpose.
II(b). The petitioner be treated as on duty since 09.08.2025 when the
order M3 was served upon him.
III. The instant OA be disposed of at the earliest granting the reliefs as
prayed for in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the O.A.
IV. Pass any further Order/Orders as may deemed fit and proper to Your
Lordships.;
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha

4 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025

FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. Applicant No. 1, namely, Shri Dipankar Dey, is the son of
Late Kartick Chandra Dey, an ex-Technician-I under
SSE/C&W/UDL, Eastern Railway, who had retired on medical
invalidation on 24.04.2001 after 33 years of service and had
subsequently passed away on 10.10.2014. Applicant No. 1 was
appointed on compassionate grounds as Technician Grade-III on
16.11.2009.
3.1. Subsequently, while working as Technician Grade-I,
Applicant No. 1 had suffered severe medical ailments, including
non-curable Dilated Cardiomyopathy (DCM with LVEF
approximately 30%) and 62% permanent hearing disability.
Following examination by a Divisional Medical Committee for
Alternative Employment on Medical Grounds (AEMG) on
12.06.2023/13.06.2023 (Annexure A/5), he was medically
decategorized and posted as Senior Clerk under the Divisional
Operations Manager (Coal), Asansol in September 2023.
3.2. Applicant No. 2, namely, Smt. Haimabati Dey, being the
widow of Late Kartick Chandra Dey, draws a family pension under
th
7 CPC, vide revised PPO No. 20017020200280 dated 12.11.2017
(Annexure A/6), with a normal basic family pension fixed at Rs.
9,030/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2016. As a widow of a retired
Railway servant, Applicant No. 2 was independently entitled to
Post-Retirement Complimentary Widow Passes under Schedule V
of the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986.
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha

5 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025

3.3. To avail pass facilities jointly with her son's family, Applicant
No. 1 had submitted online/offline family declarations dated
25.11.2023 (for 2023-24) and 28.11.2024 (for 2024-25) on the
HRMS portal for incorporating Applicant No. 2 as his dependent
widow mother. In the declaration for the year 2023-24, the
monthly income of Applicant No. 2 was recorded as "not more than
Rs. 9000/-". In the subsequent declaration submitted on
28.11.2024 for the year 2024-25, Applicant No. 1 had recorded the
monthly family pension of his mother (Applicant No. 2) as Rs.
9,030/-. The declarations were accepted by the competent
Personnel Authority (Sr. DPO, Asansol) through the HRMS module,
and Privilege Passes were generated.
3.4. On 24.01.2025, the Chief Yard Master, Andal (CYM/UDL)
submitted a Special Report alleging that Applicant No. 1 had
submitted a false family declaration for 2023-24 by stating his
mother's income as Rs. 9,000/-, whereas her actual PPO reflected
Rs. 9,030/-. Based on RBE No. 132/2016, which prescribes that a
dependent relative's income must not exceed 15% of the Railway
servant's basic pay or the minimum family pension of Rs. 9,000/-
+ DR (Dearness Relief), the administration alleged that her income
of Rs. 9,030/- exceeded the ceiling by Rs. 30/-, thereby
disqualifying her from being a dependent relative.
3.5. On 26.03.2025, Respondent No. 4 issued a Major Penalty
Charge Memorandum (SF-5) alleging violation of Rule 3.1(i) and
3.1(iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 for failing to
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha

6 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025

maintain absolute integrity. Applicant No. 1 submitted his written
defence denying the charges. An Inquiry Officer, namely, Md.
Anwar Sajjad (TI/CNL/ASN) was appointed.
3.6. During the inquiry, Applicant No. 1 had requested a Defence
Helper. On 09.07.2025, the Disciplinary Authority approved a
retired Railway servant as his Defence Helper. However, on the very
next day, 10.07.2025, the Inquiry Officer conducted and concluded
the final hearing without affording time for the approved Defence
Helper to appear.
3.7. During this period, between 04.07.2025 and 08.07.2025,
Applicant No. 1 was admitted to the Divisional Railway Hospital,
Andal / ICCU Asansol on an emergency basis for acute cardiac
complications (LVEF 30%). The Inquiry Officer concluded the
inquiry ex-parte on 10.07.2025 and submitted an Inquiry Report
dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure A/9) holding the charge proved.
3.8. Applicant No. 1 submitted his representation against the
Inquiry Report on 01.08.2025. Meanwhile, having received no
interim protection, the applicants had moved the Hon'ble High
Court at Calcutta in W.P.A. No. 12452 of 2025, which was
disposed of on 03.07.2025 (Annexure R/7) with liberty to approach
this Tribunal. The present O.A. was filed on 01.08.2025 and an
advance copy was served on the respondents on 02.08.2025.
During its pendency, Respondent No. 4 passed the impugned
Order dated 08.08.2025 removing Applicant No. 1 from Railway
service with immediate effect and forfeiting his gratuity.
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha

7 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025


CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT:

4. At hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted
that the entire charge sheet is founded on a total misconstruction
of the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986. He argued that
Applicant No. 2, as the widow of a deceased Railway servant,
possesses an independent entitlement to Widow Passes under
Schedule V. Under Advance Correction Slip (ACS) No. 20 (RBE No.
312/1999) read with Rule 9, a widow has an irreversible option to
convert her Widow Pass entitlement into her employee son's
Privilege Pass. Although exercising this option granted her a better
deal in terms of pass frequency, her underlying entitlement to pass
facilities as a Railway widow was undisputed.
4.1. Learned Counsel further contended that RBE No. 132/2016
applies to general "dependent relatives" under Rule 2(c)(vii),
whereas, Applicant No. 2 was covered under the specific Widow
Pass Conversion Scheme where her PPO details were already on
record with the Personnel Department. Hence, a minor variance of
Rs. 30/- , i.e. declaring Rs. 9,000/- instead of Rs. 9,030/-, was
entirely inconsequential and could never constitute an act of moral
turpitude or dishonesty.
4.2. He highlighted that the inquiry was conducted in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice. Approval for the
Defence Helper was granted on 09.07.2025, but the I.O. closed the
inquiry on 10.07.2025 without allowing the Defence Helper to
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha

8 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025

participate. Further, Learned Counsel vehemently submitted that
forcing a 62% permanently hearing-impaired employee suffering
from 30% LVEF severe cardiac disease to face ex-parte proceedings
while recovering from hospital admission violates the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016.
4.3. Lastly, he submitted that the penalty of removal from service
and forfeiture of gratuity for a mere Rs. 30/- income declaration
discrepancy is wildly disproportionate and unheard of.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
5. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted
that under RBE No. 132/2016, a relative cannot be treated as a
dependent if her income exceeds 15% of basic pay or Rs. 9,000/- +
DR. Since Applicant No. 2 was drawing Rs. 9,030/- per month as
family pension, her income exceeded the permissible threshold,
making her ineligible to be included as a dependent on her son's
Privilege Pass.
5.1. He argued that Applicant No. 1 gave a false family declaration
for the year 2023-24 by suppressing her actual pension to obtain
money-value pass facilities fraudulently, thereby violating Rule
3.1(i) and (iii) of the Conduct Rules.
5.2. Learned Counsel further contended that the O.A. is not
maintainable as Applicant No. 1 failed to exhaust the statutory
alternative remedy of filing a departmental appeal under Rule 21 of
the RS (D&A) Rules, 1968 before approaching this Tribunal. He
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha

9 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025

further submitted that a full-fledged inquiry was conducted giving
ample opportunity to the employee, and the Disciplinary Authority
passed a reasoned speaking order removing him as a deterrent
against fraudulent pass declarations.
FINDINGS:
6. We have carefully considered the pleadings, as well as, the
documents on record and the submissions made by both parties.
6.1. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection that
Applicant No. 1 did not file a departmental appeal against the
removal order dated 08.08.2025. We find this objection to be
untenable. When the instant O.A. was initially filed on 01.08.2025,
no final order had been passed. The Disciplinary Authority had
hastily passed the Removal Order dated 08.08.2025 during the
pendency of this O.A., within days of receiving advance notice of
the pending judicial proceedings. It is well settled that where a
disciplinary order is challenged on grounds of patent lack of
jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, and gross
disproportionality, or where the order is passed pending the
litigation, the availability of a discretionary statutory appeal does
not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
6.2. The entire D&AR proceeding rests on the allegation that
Applicant No. 1 declared his mother's income as Rs. 9,000/- in
th
2023-24, whereas her 7 CPC PPO reflected Rs. 9,030/- per
month. We note that Applicant No. 2, as the widow of a deceased
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha

10 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025

Railway employee with 33 years of service, had an independent
privilege to draw Widow Passes under Schedule V. Under Advance
Correction Slip No. 20 (RBE No. 312/1999), she was entitled to opt
to convert her pass facility into her son's Privilege Pass. While
getting included in her son's pass afforded her a better travel
frequency, her basic entitlement to Railway pass facilities as a
widow was never in doubt. Her pension PPO was already a matter
of record with the same Accounts Department. In the subsequent
declaration for 2024-25 submitted on 28.11.2024, Applicant No. 1
himself recorded her pension as Rs. 9,030/-. A variance of a trivial
sum of Rs. 30/- in a family pension declaration cannot, by any
stretch of prudent reasoning, be branded as an act of deliberate
fraud or lack of integrity warranting capital punishment in service
jurisprudence.
6.3. The record of the inquiry (Annexure A/9) demonstrates severe
procedural flaws. Although the Disciplinary Authority had
approved the nomination of a Defence Helper on 09.07.2025, the
Inquiry Officer had closed the regular hearing ex-parte on
10.07.2025, i.e. on the very next day, without allowing reasonable
time for the approved Defence Helper to appear or assist the
employee. The I.O. had conducted these proceedings at a time
when the Applicant No. 1 was undergoing emergency medical
treatment/hospitalization between 04.07.2025 and 08.07.2025 for
severe cardiac disease (LVEF 30%). Forcing an employee holding a
62% permanent hearing disability certificate (Annexure A/4) and
severe heart disease (Annexure A/5) to defend himself in a major
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha

11 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025

penalty inquiry without his approved Defence Helper violates the
statutory guarantee of a reasonable opportunity under Rule 9(13)
of the RS (D&A) Rules, 1968, as well as, the mandate of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016.
6.4. Furthermore, the punishment of ‘Removal from Service with
forfeiture of gratuity’ imposed on a medically decategorized, 62%
disabled employee for an alleged Rs. 30/- discrepancy in a pass
declaration is so excessive that it shocks the judicial conscience.
6.5. In Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Bank of India , reported in
(2019) 15 SCC 786, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where
the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is grossly
out of proportion to the alleged infraction, the Court/Tribunal
must intervene to set aside such arbitrary exercise of power.
Similarly, in Ex-Naik Sardar Singh v. Union of India , reported in
(1991) 3 SCC 213 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that an
administrative penalty must bear a reasonable relationship to the
gravity of the offense, and imposing extreme economic
punishments for minor infractions violates Article 14 of the
Constitution.
6.6. Where the proceedings are founded on a misapplication of
rules, conducted in breach of the principles of natural justice, and
culminate in an order that is shockingly disproportionate,
remanding the matter back to the executive would cause further
harassment to a severely disabled employee. The impugned orders,
therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha

12 O.A. No. 350/1118/2025


CONCLUSION:

7. In view of the above discussion, the instant O.A. and the
accompanying M.A. No. 350/00781/2025 are allowed. The Major
Penalty Charge Memorandum bearing No. TM/Pass/2025(DD)
dated 26.03.2025, the Inquiry Report dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure
A-9), and the Removal Order bearing No. TM/Pass/2025(DD) dated
08.08.2025 passed by Respondent No. 4 are hereby quashed and
set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate Applicant No.
1 in service forthwith as Senior Clerk, with full continuity of
service, restoration of all service benefits, and payment of full back
wages from the date of removal till reinstatement. The respondents
are further directed to process the withheld promotion of Applicant
No. 1 to the post of Office Superintendent (Level-6) pursuant to the
Suitability Test result dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure A/2).
7.1. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the
respondents within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Pending M.A.s, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.

(Diwakar Singh) (Anindo Majumdar)

Member (J) Member (A)

UJ
Digitally signed by Utkarsh Jha
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative
Tribunal, OU=Department of Personnel and
Training, Phone=
a851c6412cda6db52ed568d6ca110c67006 16c4ebefeb5b49203412a39d11b0d,
PostalCode=700020, S=West Bengal,
Utkars SERIALNUMBER=
87702d895f8f8d9e54f67b1d9ffc368bb1bac
7172b7b88641da0dc7e71dd7d0a, CN=
Utkarsh Jha
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.09.03 13:15:49+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
h Jha