Rajesh Khanna vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.2318/2019
Reserved on: 21.10.2026
Pronounced on: 28.10.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Shri Rajesh Khanna,
SE (Rt.), age 64 years, Group ‘A’,
S/o Sh.KL Khanna,
R/o House No. H-46,
Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Delhi - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Rajeev Sharma)
Versus
1. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, New Delhi – 110054
2. The Commissioner,
Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Dr. SK Mukherjee,
th
9 Floor, Civic Centre,
J.L. Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 - Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. Amit Sinha & Mr. RV Sinha)
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
2
ORDER
Per Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
The applicant has filed the present Original Application
challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the
penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, and the order dated
24.07.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal.
The applicant is a graduate in Civil Engineering and was appointed
as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the year 1990 against the direct
recruitment quota in accordance with the relevant Recruitment
Rules. He was promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil) on an ad hoc
basis on 14.09.2000 and was subsequently regularised in the said
post without any break in service vide order dated 08.09.2008. The
disciplinary proceedings in question pertain to the period when he
was working as Executive Engineer (Civil). He is presently working as
Superintending Engineer (Civil) on an ad hoc basis since 25.03.2010.
His case was kept in a sealed cover in the Departmental Promotion
Committee (DPC) held in 2015 on account of the pendency of the
present disciplinary matter.
2. The case relates to two projects, namely, Sawan Park and
Roshanara Garden, undertaken in connection with the construction
works concerning railway crossings in Delhi. Out of 31 railway
crossings in Delhi, 16 fell within the jurisdiction of the erstwhile
Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The applicant submits that the
projects were processed in accordance with the prescribed
departmental procedure. M/s Park Project Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.,
which had been appointed as Project Consultant after following the
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
3
due tendering process, prepared the estimates and justification of
rates. These documents were thereafter required to be scrutinised
and verified by the concerned Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer
and Executive Engineer, followed by examination by the Planning
Department and the Technical Section. The estimates were processed
through the concerned departmental authorities, including the
Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer, Engineer-in-Chief,
Additional Commissioner and Commissioner, before being placed
before the Standing Committee for financial approval, wherever
required. The applicant contends that the estimates, comparative
statements, justification of rates and other relevant documents were
dealt with in accordance with the established procedure and that the
execution of the works was subject to the supervision of the
concerned departmental officers.
3. Vide charge-sheet dated 22.04.2014, twelve articles of charge
were framed against the applicant, alleging, inter alia, that he had
acted in connivance with the contractor and subordinate staff in
passing the first three running bills in the Sawan Park project,
resulting in alleged excess payment of Rs.3,10,39,077/- to M/s
Rama Construction Company; failed to verify the actual lead of earth
carriage and the availability of requisite SLF slips; failed to check the
increase in the quantity of earthwork and the amounts paid to the
contractors in both projects; failed to verify the justification of rates
and obtain the requisite signatures of the Executive Engineer
(Planning) and the consultant; failed to prepare or obtain
comparative statements; failed to conduct proper negotiations with
the contractor; overlooked the distinction between the units of
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
4
measurement, namely, per cubic metre and per cubic metre per
kilometre; failed to incorporate the deviation and variation clause in
the Sawan Park tender conditions; and failed to exercise proper
supervision and control over his subordinate staff. The Junior
Engineer and Assistant Engineer concerned were also charge-sheeted
in relation to the same works, though the allegations against them
were framed with reference to their respective roles.
4. A common inquiry was conducted against eleven officers
allegedly involved in the matter. According to the applicant, although
the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), prior to the issuance of the
charge-sheets, had initially recommended different levels of action
against the officers, major-penalty charge-sheets were ultimately
issued against all of them. The Inquiry Officer, however, held the
charges proved only against two officers, including the applicant and
a Technical Officer. The Disciplinary Authority ultimately exonerated
the other officers while imposing a penalty upon the applicant. The
applicant further submits that a preliminary inquiry had been
conducted by Shri Feroz Ahmed, Chief Engineer, and that the
findings of the preliminary inquiry were substantially similar to those
of the regular inquiry. Shri Feroz Ahmed subsequently appeared as
PW-1 during the regular inquiry and, according to the applicant,
responded to the material questions by stating that the matters were
part of the record. He was also a member of the committee
constituted by the Commissioner to supervise the works in question.
5. The applicant contends that the Inquiry Officer's findings are
self-contradictory and unsupported by the evidence on record. He
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
5
submits that Charge No. 11, concerning the alleged adoption of a
lead of 20 kilometres instead of 10 kilometres, was held not proved,
and that the other charges, being connected with and dependent
upon the same allegations, could not have been sustained without
independent and cogent evidence. In particular, he disputes the
finding that he was responsible for the preparation of the justification
of rates merely because the relevant documents were routed through
him. According to him, the justification of rates had been prepared
by the consultant and thereafter signed by the Technical Assistant
and the applicant before being forwarded to the higher authorities
and the Planning Department for scrutiny. He submits that the
relevant documents, including those appearing at pages 235 to 243
of the inquiry record, established the consultant's role in preparing
the justification of rates. He also relies upon the findings concerning
the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer, against whom the
allegation that the justification of rates had not been prepared by the
consultant was not proved. The applicant further contends that the
finding regarding the absence of the signature of the Executive
Engineer (Planning) is inconsistent with the treatment of the related
charge concerning scrutiny by the Planning Department. He
maintains that the estimates and rate justifications were processed
through the prescribed departmental channels and that any
discrepancy in the adoption of standard DSR items was, at best, an
inadvertent error and not evidence of misconduct.
6. The applicant further submits that the comparative statement
relating to the two projects was available on the inquiry record but
was allegedly overlooked by the Inquiry Officer. He also relies upon
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
6
the document concerning negotiations with the contractor, which,
according to him, demonstrated that negotiations had taken place on
the recommendation of the Chief Engineer and that the contractor
had agreed to reduce the overall tender amount in the Sawan Park
project. He disputes the allegation that he had failed to incorporate
the deviation and variation clause, contending that no such
requirement existed in the applicable rule book at the relevant time.
He also relies upon the testimony of Shri Sanjay Jain, Chief
Engineer, who appeared as a defence witness and, according to the
applicant, supported his case by stating that no case was made out
against him. The applicant submits that the testimony of the said
witness remained unshaken during cross-examination. He further
points out that, out of the 26 bills prepared in relation to the
projects, only the first three were signed by him, whereas the
remaining 23 bills were passed by Shri Hassan, who had taken over
charge from him. According to the applicant, no show-cause notice or
charge-sheet was issued to Shri Hassan in respect of those bills,
despite the fact that he continued in service beyond his normal date
of superannuation up to June 2014.
7. The applicant also asserts that no loss was ultimately caused
to the Corporation and that no personal gain accrued to him. He
submits that, under the applicable procedure, any excess payment
made to a contractor was liable to be adjusted in subsequent bills
and that final adjustments were required to be made before payment
of the final bill. According to him, such adjustments were carried out
by his successor. He further relies upon the CVC Office
Memorandum dated 18.10.2017, which, as per his contention,
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
7
acknowledged that there was no irregularity at the estimation stage.
He also submits that the alleged checking of the estimates prepared
by the consultant was the responsibility of the concerned officers at
the respective stages and that the committee responsible for checking
the justification of rates did not include him. The applicant further
relies upon the documents relating to the CBI proceedings,
contending that the CBI had found no material against him in
respect of the allegation of criminal breach of trust and that the
findings arising from those proceedings supported his defence in the
departmental inquiry.
8. The applicant states that, when the proposed penalty of
removal from service was communicated to him, he approached this
Tribunal by filing OA No. 1180/2018, in which an order of status quo
was passed. The said Original Application was subsequently disposed
of with liberty to the applicant to submit a supplementary reply,
which he duly filed on 12.07.2018. Thereafter, the Disciplinary
Authority passed the order dated 16.10.2018, imposing upon him the
penalty of reduction in pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for
a period of three years with cumulative effect. The applicant contends
that the penalty order did not adequately discuss his defence or the
material evidence on record and that the conclusion imposing the
penalty was reached without proper consideration of his
submissions. He further submits that the Disciplinary Authority
proceeded on incorrect factual assumptions, including the
description of Shri Hassan as an Assistant Engineer, whereas,
according to the applicant, he was working as an Executive Engineer
and had been granted an extension in that capacity.
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
8
9. The applicant preferred an appeal against the penalty order
before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected vide order dated
24.07.2019. He challenges the appellate order on the ground that the
Appellate Authority travelled beyond the allegations contained in the
charge-sheet and introduced or relied upon grounds that had not
formed part of the charges served upon him. He further contends
that the Appellate Authority failed to independently examine the
relevant evidence, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and
the documents supporting his defence. According to the applicant,
the appellate order is based on incorrect facts and is contrary to the
findings of the Inquiry Officer, without recording a proper
disagreement with those findings in accordance with law. He
maintains that the relevant documents concerning the consultant's
preparation of the justification of rates, the comparative statement,
negotiations with the contractor and the testimony of the defence
witness were either ignored or not properly appreciated by the
disciplinary and appellate authorities.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned
disciplinary and appellate orders are unsustainable in law as the
charges levelled against the applicant were not established by reliable
evidence and the authorities failed to consider the material available
on the inquiry record. Counsel contended that the applicant had
discharged his duties diligently and honestly in accordance with the
prescribed departmental procedure and that the estimates and
justification of rates had been prepared by the appointed consultant
and examined at various departmental levels. It was argued that the
Inquiry Officer's findings were internally inconsistent, particularly in
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
9
view of Charge No. 11 having been held not proved, and that the
findings concerning the remaining interconnected charges were not
supported by independent evidence. Learned counsel further
submitted that the Inquiry Officer had overlooked the comparative
statement, the documents evidencing negotiations with the
contractor, the consultant-prepared justification of rates and the
defence testimony of Shri Sanjay Jain, Chief Engineer. It was also
argued that the applicant could not be held solely responsible for the
alleged irregularities when the relevant documents had passed
through several departmental authorities and the other officers
concerned had either been exonerated or had not been proceeded
against in respect of the subsequent running bills.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the
absence of any established personal gain or ultimate financial loss to
the Corporation, the alleged absence of irregularity at the estimation
stage, and the material emerging from the CBI proceedings had not
been properly considered by the authorities. Counsel submitted that
the Disciplinary Authority had failed to record adequate reasons for
imposing the penalty of reduction in pay by five stages for three years
with cumulative effect, while the Appellate Authority had
mechanically affirmed the penalty without independently considering
the grounds raised in the appeal. It was further contended that the
Appellate Authority had travelled beyond the scope of the charge-
sheet and relied upon grounds not forming part of the original
charges, thereby causing prejudice to the applicant. On these
grounds, learned counsel submitted that the impugned orders suffer
from non-application of mind, erroneous appreciation of the inquiry
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
10
record and failure to consider the applicant's defence, and
accordingly sought their setting aside along with consequential reliefs
in accordance with law.
12. Counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and
submitted that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in disciplinary matters is
limited to judicial review and that it cannot substitute its own
opinion for that of the disciplinary authority regarding the quantum
of punishment, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Parma
Nanda v. State of Haryana and State Bank of India v. Samarendra
Kishore Endow. It is submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against the applicant, Shri Rajesh Khanna, for alleged
financial irregularities in the execution of ROB/RUB projects at
Sawan Park and Roshanara Garden, involving excess payments to
the contractor, failure to verify the actual lead of earth carriage,
improper scrutiny of rates and quantities, and lack of supervision
over subordinate staff. It is further submitted that a regular
departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with the
applicable DMC Services (Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1959,
providing the applicant reasonable opportunities to defend himself,
and that the Inquiry Officer held the charges proved on the basis of
oral and documentary evidence. The respondents maintain that the
disciplinary authority imposed the penalty after due consideration of
the inquiry report and the applicant’s reply, and that the action was
proportionate to the misconduct established. It is also submitted that
the applicant was subsequently compulsorily retired in public
interest under FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, vide order dated 31.10.2019. Accordingly, the respondents
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
11
contend that the departmental proceedings and the impugned action
are legally sustainable, that no procedural irregularity has been
established, and that the Original Application is devoid of merit and
liable to be dismissed.
13. In addition to the above submissions, counsel for the applicant
has filed the written submissions and submitted that the applicant
has challenged the penalty order dated 06.10.2018 and the appellate
order dated 31.07.2019. It is contended that the inquiry report need
not be separately challenged, as it stands merged with the final order
of the disciplinary authority under the doctrine of merger, as
explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed & Ors.
v. State of Kerala & Ors. , (2000) 6 SCC 359. It is further submitted
that the disciplinary authority had independently considered the
inquiry record, the applicant’s reply and his personal hearing before
imposing the penalty, and that the inquiry report is neither binding
on the disciplinary authority nor free from contradictions and
findings contrary to the record.
14. Counsel further submits that Charges Nos. 4, 5 and 9 were
wrongly held proved, Charge No. 1 was partly proved, and Charge No.
11 was not proved. It is argued that the findings regarding the
applicant’s role in the alleged irregularities are inconsistent with the
documentary evidence and the findings concerning other officers,
particularly the Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer. It is also
contended that Charge Nos. 2 and 3 were incorrectly established
against the applicant despite the relevant provisions of the CPWD
specifications, the role of the special committee and sub-committee,
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
12
and the absence of supporting evidence regarding the justification of
rates. Further, the applicant disputes the findings relating to Charge
No. 10 and submits that the relevant estimates were prepared by the
consultant and checked by the concerned committee. Accordingly,
counsel contends that the inquiry findings suffer from material
inconsistencies and are unsustainable in view of the evidence on
record.
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the pleadings available on record.
16. The applicant has filed the present Original Application
challenging the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and
the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal. The
principal question for consideration is whether the impugned orders
suffer from any illegality, procedural irregularity, non-application of
mind or perversity warranting interference by this Tribunal in the
exercise of its power of judicial review.
17. At the outset, it is well settled that the scope of judicial review
in disciplinary proceedings is limited. This Tribunal does not sit as
an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the Inquiry
Officer or the Disciplinary Authority and cannot reappreciate the
evidence as if conducting a fresh inquiry. Interference is warranted
only where the findings are unsupported by evidence, perverse,
based on irrelevant considerations, or where the proceedings suffer
from violation of the applicable rules or principles of natural justice.
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
13
18. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India , (1995) 6 SCC 749, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot ordinarily
substitute its own conclusions for those of the disciplinary authority.
Similar principles have been laid down in Union of India v. Parma
Nanda , (1989) 2 SCC 177, and Union of India & Ors. v. P.
Gunasekaran , (2015) 2 SCC 610, wherein the limitations on judicial
review in disciplinary matters have been explained.
19. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon
Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar , (2009) 12 SCC 78,
particularly paragraphs 34 and 35, to contend that the charges in a
departmental inquiry must be clear, definite and specific and that the
inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the prescribed
procedure. Reliance has also been placed upon The State of
Karnataka & Anr. v. Umesh , Civil Appeal Nos. 1763–1764 of 2022,
particularly paragraph 17, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reiterated that the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the
findings of the disciplinary authority and does not ordinarily
reappreciate the evidence.
20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
relied upon B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (supra), Union of
India v. Parma Nanda (supra) and U nion of India & Ors. v. P.
Gunasekaran (supra) to submit that the Tribunal cannot reassess
the evidence or interfere with the punishment merely because
another view of the matter may be possible.
21. Having considered the judgments relied upon by both parties,
we find that the principles laid down therein are well settled. The
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
14
requirement of clear and specific charges and adherence to the
principles of natural justice, as emphasised in Gyan Chand Chattar
(supra), must be read harmoniously with the limitations on judicial
review explained in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) and P. Gunasekaran
(supra). The Tribunal is required to examine whether the applicant
was afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and whether
the findings recorded by the departmental authorities are supported
by evidence and are free from perversity or material procedural
irregularity.
22. In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings arose out of
alleged financial irregularities in the execution of the Sawan Park and
Roshanara Garden projects. The allegations, inter alia, concerned the
passing of running bills, verification of earthwork quantities and
lead, scrutiny of rates and failure to exercise proper supervisory
control. The applicant was working as Executive Engineer (Civil)
during the relevant period and was, therefore, required to discharge
the duties attached to his post in accordance with the prescribed
departmental procedure. In this regard, one of the charges framed
against the applicant (Charged Officer) was that he, in connivance
with the contractor and the Junior Engineer (Project), prepared an
incorrect bill for payment and submitted the same to the Executive
Engineer (Project) for passing, thereby resulting in an alleged excess
payment of Rs. 39,51,940.40 to the contractor, M/s Rama
Construction Company.
23. The applicant has contended that the estimates and
justification of rates were prepared by the consultant and that the
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
15
relevant documents were examined by various departmental
authorities, including the concerned committees and officers of the
Planning Department. He has also relied upon the comparative
statements, documents relating to negotiations with the contractor
and the testimony of the defence witness. However, the fact that the
estimates were prepared by a consultant or examined at different
departmental levels would not, by itself, absolve the applicant of his
own responsibilities in relation to the scrutiny and recommendation
of bills and the supervision of the works.
24. The question for consideration is not whether the applicant has
offered an alternative explanation of the circumstances, but whether
the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and accepted by the
Disciplinary Authority have a rational basis in the evidence adduced
during the inquiry. The Tribunal cannot substitute its own
assessment of the evidence merely because another interpretation
may be possible.
25. The applicant has further contended that Charge No. 11 was
held not proved and, therefore, the findings in respect of the other
charges are inconsistent. We are unable to accept this contention as
a ground for interference by itself. Each article of charge has to be
examined on the basis of the evidence relevant thereto. The failure to
establish one charge does not automatically invalidate the findings in
respect of the remaining charges, unless it is demonstrated that such
findings are inseparably dependent upon the charge which was not
proved or are otherwise unsupported by evidence.
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
16
26. The contention that other officers were exonerated or that no
disciplinary action was initiated against the successor officer in
respect of subsequent bills also does not, by itself, establish that the
findings against the applicant are unsustainable. The responsibility
of each officer has to be assessed with reference to his duties, role
and conduct during the relevant period. Similarly, the applicant’s
contention that no personal gain accrued to him or that subsequent
adjustments were made in the payments would not, by itself, absolve
him of responsibility if a failure to discharge his official duties is
otherwise established.
27. We have also considered the applicant’s reliance upon the
preliminary inquiry, the testimony of PW-1, the defence evidence and
the documents relating to the CBI proceedings. The findings of a
preliminary inquiry cannot, by themselves, determine the outcome of
a regular departmental inquiry. The latter has to be decided on the
evidence brought on record during the regular proceedings. Likewise,
the outcome of criminal proceedings does not automatically
determine the result of departmental proceedings, as the nature of
the proceedings and the applicable standard of proof may differ.
28. It is also well settled that misconduct in departmental
proceedings is required to be established on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. The
disciplinary authority is required to determine, on an assessment of
the evidence available on record, whether the allegations against the
charged officer are more probable than not. At the same time, the
findings must have a rational evidentiary basis and cannot rest upon
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
17
conjectures or assumptions. The applicant’s objections, therefore,
have to be examined within these settled parameters.
29. The applicant has further alleged that the Disciplinary
Authority did not adequately consider his defence and that the
Appellate Authority travelled beyond the allegations contained in the
charge-sheet. These are relevant considerations in judicial review.
However, mere disagreement with the conclusions recorded by the
authorities or the absence of an elaborate discussion of every
submission does not, by itself, establish non-application of mind.
Interference would be warranted if a material procedural violation,
denial of reasonable opportunity or reliance upon an extraneous
allegation causing prejudice were established. On the grounds urged
before us, no such infirmity has been sufficiently demonstrated so as
to warrant interference with the impugned order.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the applicant’s
contentions primarily seek a reappreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence and substitution of his interpretation for that
adopted by the departmental authorities. In view of the principles
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi (supra),
Parma Nanda (supra), P. Gunasekaran (supra) and The State of
Karnataka v. Umesh (supra), this Tribunal cannot undertake such
an exercise in the absence of any established ground for judicial
interference.
31. As regards the penalty imposed, no sufficient ground has been
established in the submissions placed before us to hold that the
punishment warrants interference within the settled parameters of
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5
18
judicial review. The Tribunal cannot substitute its own view
regarding the appropriate penalty merely because a different or lesser
punishment may also have been possible.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no sufficient
ground to interfere with the impugned orders of the Disciplinary
Authority and the Appellate Authority. The Original Application is,
accordingly, dismissed. Pending MA(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/lg/
LALIT
GOSAI
2026.10.3
0
15:39:02
+05'30'
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.198/2017
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
Pronounced on: 04.02.2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J) Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Balwan Singh Mehta, S/o Sh. Prem Raj, Lab. Supdt. In Northern Railway,
Central Hospital, New Delhi, Aged about 47 years, R/o 158/16, Railway Colony, Basant Road, New Delhi-55 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
2. General Manager (P),
3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi Railway Recruitment Board (Allahabad)
Through its Chairman, DRM Office Complex, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad
4. DRM (P)
Northern Railway, Lucknow, UP
5. Mahesh Chandra Bhimavad,
Working as Lab. Supdt. Sub Divisional Railway Hospital, Itarasi, MP
6. Mahavir Pandit, working as Lab. Supdt.,
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
7. Lucknow, UP Kulbhushan Doval, Working as Lab. Supdt.,
N
Northern Railway Divisional Hospital, Lucknow, UP - Respondents
(Mr. Pradeep Kr. Sharma, Mr. Piyush Gaur for respondents 1 to 4, Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya with Mr. Pradeep Tripathi for respondents 4 & 5