KARMJEET YADAV vs D/O POST

1
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

O.A. No. 2543/2026

th
This the 13 day of August, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)

Karmjeet Yadav So Sh. Kailash Chand Yadav,
aged 28 years, Village Biranwas P.O. Mandhan,
Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan-
301704 . (Group ‘C')
… Applicant

(By Advocate: Mr. Mukesh Kumar)

Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Communications & Information Technology,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi- 110001
2. Director Postal Services, Punjab Region,
Sandesh Bhawan, Sector 17E
Chandigarh- 160017.

3. Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle,
Sandesh Bhawan, Sector 17E,
Chandigarh- 160017.
.... Respondents


(By Advocate: Mr. Jalaj Agarwal)
















AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

2
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

O R D E R (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)

Heard the learned counsels for the parties. With their
assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on
record.
2. In the present Original Application, the applicant has
prayed for the following relief(s):-
“(1) Quash the order dated 4.1.2017 (Annexure A-1) vide
which his services of the applicant have been terminated, in
terms of clause 5 (1) of CS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965,
with immediate effect by grant of a sum equivalent to the
amount of his pay and allowances for a period of one month
(in lieu of the period of notice) which is in violation of
principles of natural justice, Article 311 of the Constitution of
India, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, legitimate
expectation and cannot be sustained in the eyes of Law.
(2) Quash the Order dated 31.8.2018 (Annexure A-2) vide
which the appeal filed by the applicant against his termination
of service, has been rejected without application of mind and
in a mechanical manner without adverting to the facts of the
case.
(3) Issue direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicant
in service w.e.f. 4.1.2017, with all the consequential benefits of
pay and allowances, seniority etc. etc. and interest on
withheld amounts @ 18% per annum from the date of amount
became due to the actual date of payment.
(4) Any other order or direction deemed fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case to which the applicant is
held entitled to may also kindly be issued in his favour.
(5) Award costs of the Application in favour of the applicant.”

3. In response to the notice, respondents have filed
counter reply. It is undisputed that the applicant was
appointed as Postal Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-
20200/- with grade pay of Rs. 2400/- plus allowances as
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

3
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

admissible after being declared successful in the direct
recruitment examination for the year 2013-2014, vide
appointment letter dated 10.04.2015. The applicant joined
his duties on 17.04.2015 after completion of pre-requisite
formalities.
4. Pursuant to letter dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure A-3)
regarding review of the orders of ‘holding in abeyance of
appointment/training’ pertaining to PA/SA Direct
Recruitment Examination, 2014, the competent authority
constituted Divisional Level and Circle Level Committee to
carry out thorough checks as per instructions of the
Directorate and pinpoint omissions, if any, and submit
results of the verification to the high power Committee vide
directions dated 17.09.2015. The Divisional Level
Committee, held its meeting on 09.11.2015, for review of the
recruitment of the Postal Assistant of RLO staff and
considered the case of the applicant and found that
signatures of the applicant found on attestation form, charge
report, medical certificate and online application form did
not match his signatures available on OMR Sheet, Typing
and Data Entry Test Sheets. The case of the applicant was
further considered by the High Power Committee
constituted by the respondents in its meeting held on
04.12.2015 and taking into view the recommendation of the
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

4
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

High Power Committee an opportunity was provided to the
applicant to have a look on all the recruitment documents
and to give statement on the observations of the High Power
Committee. The applicant, in response, submitted that he
applied for the post online and signatures and photograph
on the application form are his only. He further submitted
that the OMR Sheet bears his signatures and the OMR sheet
is filled by him. He admitted that there may be some
difference in the signatures done by him on OMR Sheet,
Typing Evaluation Sheet and Date Entry Evaluation Sheet.
However, keeping in view the fact that all the relevant
documents were sent to the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory, Chandigarh, for verification of signatures of the
applicant and OMR Sheet etc., and keeping in view the
finding returned by the CFSL, the respondents passed the
impugned order terminating the services of the applicant.
5. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the
applicant submitted an appeal and the said appeal was
rejected by the respondents and thus, the present OA.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
identical issue came before various Benches of this Tribunal,
including before the Principal Bench in O.A. No. 4228/2024
titled Kanwar Singh v/s Union of India & Ors ., and
the said OA was decided along with a batch of OAs vide
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

5
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

common order/judgment dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure A-
14), and such order/judgment has attained finality,
inasmuch as, the order/judgment of this Tribunal has been
upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and further also
by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also brought on
record a circular dated 05.06.2026 issued by respondent no.
1 addressed to all the Heads of the Circles of the Postal
Department to deal with the situation as in the present OA
and in other various identical cases. He has argued that in
light of the common order/judgment of 28.07.2025 in
Kanwar Singh ( supra ), and what has been decided as a
policy decision in circular dated 05.06.2026, under
reference, the present OA deserves to be allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has though
referred to the assertions made in the counter reply;
however, he has fairly admitted that the issue involved in
the present case is squarely covered by the order/judgment
dated 28.07.2025 of this Tribunal in the case of Kanwar
Singh ( supra ). He further submits that so far, circular
dated 05.06.2026 is concerned, he is not aware of the same.
However, keeping in view the statement made by the
learned counsel for the applicant and a copy of such circular
placed on record by him, we do not find any reason to
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

6
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

disbelieve the genuineness of said circular dated
05.06.2026. For sake of clarity, the common
order/judgment dated 28.07.2025 in Kanwar Singh
( supra ) is reproduced as under:-
“Learned counsels for the parties submit that the issue
involved in the aforesaid OAs are common and
therefore, the aforesaid OAs can be heard and
adjudicated together.
2. In view of the aforesaid, with consent of the learned
counsels for the parties, the captioned OAs have been
heard together and are being disposed of vide the
present common order.
3. Learned counsels for the parties submit that
pursuant to the advertisement issued by the
respondents, the applicants participated in the selection
process for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting
Assistant. On the applicants being declared successful
in such selection process, they were appointed to such
posts in various circles, including Punjab and Gujarat,
etc. under Respondent No. 1.
4. The applicants, after completion of their relevant
training, were posted at different places under the
respondents. Mr. U. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondents in respective OAs submits that the only
exception/distinguishing feature so far in OA No.
1992/2025 is that pursuant to the said selection, the
applicant was not appointed and before his
appointment, the report from CFSL, regarding
mismatch of signature of the applicant(s)/candidate(s)
came to the notice of the respondents.
5. In the light of such report of the CFSL, the
respondents passed the order of termination of services
of the applicants, by invoking the provisions of Rule 5
(1) of the CCS (Temporary) Service Rules, 1965.
However, in case of the applicants in OA No.
1992/2025, on receipt of such report from CFSL, the
selection and/or the offer of appointment issued to the
applicants was cancelled. Aggrieved by such order(s)
passed by the respondents regarding termination of
services of the applicants and/or cancellation of
selection for appointment have been challenged in the
captioned OA.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has
argued that the issue involved in the present case is no
more res integra inasmuch as a coordinate bench of this
Tribunal, consisting one of us [Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

7
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

Member (J)] vide common order/judgement dated
10.03.2022 in OA No. 2756/2019 & batch titled Shri
Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Vs. Director General of Postal
Services and Ors., etc. has allowed such OAs. Such
common order/judgment was challenged before the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order/judgment dated
18.07.2024 in W.P. (C) No. 15248/2022 titled Union of
India & Ors. vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. has upheld
the Tribunal’s Order and dismissed the said Writ
Petition. Further, the order/judgment of the Hon’ble
High Court was challenged by the respondents before
the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of SLP (C) vide Diary
No. 55214/2024 and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide
order/judgment dated 16.12.2024 dismissed the SLP.
7. Learned counsels for the applicants has further
submitted that taking into account various decisions of
the Tribunal/Hon’ble High Court/Hon’ble Apex Court in
such matters, a policy decision dated 17.04.2025 has
been taken and the same reads as under:-
“To
The Chief Postmaster General,
Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Rajasthan and
Uttarakhand Circles
Subject: Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant (PA/SA)
Direct Recruitment examination for the years 2013-
2014 – “Administrative Decision”- regarding
Madam/Sir,
"I am directed to refer to the subject mentioned
above
and to say that Postal Directorate, in consultation with
Department of Legal Affairs (DOLA), Ministry of Law &
Justice, New Delhi, has examined all the cases, which
are arisen out on the basis of negative report of CFSL
and pending before various forum of law i.e. CAT/High
Court/ Supreme Court.
2. The Competent Authority, after perusal of 'Legal
opinion' of DOLA, Contempt Petitions filed by the
applicants and other connected & relevant records to
the case, has taken a considered decision to reinstate all
the applicants of the identical CAT/Court cases and
ordered the following:
(i) All the candidates, whose candidature were
terminated based on negative report of CFSL or the
authorship were not established by the CFSL and cases
are pending before Hon'ble CAT/High Court/Supreme
Court, may be reinstated.
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

8
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

(ii) If any material is available against the candidates,
appropriate action in accordance with law, after
providing due opportunity of hearing, may be taken.
(iii) Principle of 'No Work No Pay' may be strictly
adhered to.
3. Circles are requested to issue the reinstatement order
and dispatch today itself to all the candidates covered
in this approval. Their training may be arranged after
joining on reinstatement as soon as possible.
4. This issues with the approval of Secretary (Posts).”
8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in
the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal,
upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and further
upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also taking into
account, the conscious policy decision of the
respondents in their communication/circular dated
17.04.2025, under reference, the respondents were
expected to re-instate the applicants in service.
However, till date, no decision, in this regard, has been
taken by the respondents.
9. It is not in dispute that to enable the respondents to
take fresh instructions from the respondents
particularly keeping in view the respondents’ own
policy decision dated 17.04.2025, adequate opportunity
was given to them. However, today, learned counsel for
the respondents submits that despite their best efforts,
they have not got any concrete instruction from the
respondents.
10. Mr. U. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that the communication dated
17.04.2025 has been endorsed to the Chief Postmaster
General of various circles, i.e., Chattisgarh, Gujarat,
Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand, however, as the
same has not been endorse to the Punjab circle to which
the applicant in OA No 1992/2025, etc. belongs, the
matter has been taken up by the concerned circle with
the Respondent No. 1 to enable them to take a final
decision.
11. We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsels for the parties.
12. The paragraphs 8 to 20 of the order/judgment
dated 18.07.2024 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
case of Sanjeev Kumar (supra), reads as under:-
“8. However, where the employer considers it necessary
to record the termination of services of employee for
some misconduct, the termination would cease to be
termination simplicitor. Since such termination on the
grounds of some misconduct gets recorded in the
service book/record of the employee, it would be
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

9
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

extremely unfair to deprive her an opportunity to
respond and establish her innocence. At the same time,
it would also deprive the employer an opportunity to
test the veracity of such allegation and lose an
otherwise competent employee. An employee facing
termination of her services by way of stigmatic order
cannot be denied a right to establish that the allegation
against her is not truthful and/or the justification in
that regard.
9. In the case of Purshottam Lal Dhingra vs UOI ,
AIR 1958 SC 36, the Supreme Court held that it is not
the form of termination order but the substance thereof
that must be examined by the court to ascertain if the
same is a penal or stigmatic order in nature and in
appropriate cases, the court can tear the veil behind the
termination order which is innocuous on its face and is
a discharge simplicitor.
10. In the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs
Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences & Anr .,
AIR 2002 SC 23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
whenever a probationer challenges termination of her
services, the first task for the court is to apply the test of
stigma or the form test and if the order urvives this
examination, then substance of the termination would
have to be ascertained; and that where the language of
the termination order imputes something over and
above mere unsuitability of the employee for the job, the
order is stigmatic one.
11. In the case of Samsher Singh vs State of
Punjab , (1974) 2 SCC 831, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed thus: “64. Before a probationer is confirmed
the authority concerned is under an
obligation to consider whether the work of the
probationer is satisfactory or whether he is suitable for
the post. In the absence of any rules governing the
probationer in this respect the authority may come to
the conclusion that on account of inadequacy for the job
or for any temperamental or other object not involving
moral turpitude the probationer is unsuitable for the
job and hence must be discharged. No punishment is
involved in this. The authority may in some cases be of
the view that the conduct of the probationer may result
in dismissal or removal on an enquiry. But in those
cases the authority may not hold an enquiry and may
simply discharge the probationer with a view to giving
him a chance to make good in other walks of life
without a stigma at the time of termination of
probation. If, on the other hand, the probationer is
faced with an enquiry on charges of misconduct or
inefficiency or corruption, and if his services are
terminated without following the provisions of Article
311(2) he can claim protection.”
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

10
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

12. In the case of Prithipal Singh vs State of
Punjab & Ors , (2002) 10 SCC 133, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held thus:
“7. The aforesaid record plainly reveals recording of
misconduct of the appellant. It records, he has
disobeyed the order of his superiors. Once this is
recorded in the service record, which is disclosed by the
respondent, it cannot be said that there is no stigma
attached to the order of discharge. Once there is stigma,
the principle is well settled, an opportunity has to be
given before passing any order. Even where an order of
discharge looks innocuous, but on close scrutiny, by
looking behind the curtain if any material exists of
misconduct and which is the foundation of passing of
the order of discharge, or such could be reasonably
inferred, then it leaves no room for doubt that any
consequential order, even of discharge, would be
construed as stigmatic. Then opportunity has to be
given.....”
13. In the present case, not just the substance but even
the form of the termination orders is clearly stigmatic
and the same are more in the nature of dismissal rather
termination.
14. As reflected from the said termination orders, the
petitioners, on the basis of their understanding of the
order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Monu
Tomar (supra), provided copies of the relevant
documents to the respondents, who submitted their
detailed representations, challenging extensively the
forensic reports of FSL, Chandigarh and claimed that
they could demolish the same if a detailed enquiry was
held. Despite that, the petitioners in their wisdom opted
not to test the veracity of those forensic reports through
a departmental enquiry granting an opportunity to the
respondents to cross examine the authors of those FSL
report, and thereby they deprived the respondents a
fair opportunity to be heard.
15. It is trite that expert evidence is a weak piece of
evidence. In the present case, except the said expert
evidence (which, strictly speaking, is not even an
evidence because the forensic reports were not got
proved through authors thereof by calling them into the
witness box and giving opportunity to the respondents
to cross examine them) there is no other evidence at all
to show that the respondents resorted to any unfair
means in the recruitment exam.
16. During final arguments, we asked the learned
counsel for
petitioners as to whether any criminal complaint
followed by
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

11
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

police investigation was got lodged and conducted,
going by
their allegation of impersonation. It was submitted on
behalf of petitioners that no police complaint was
lodged by any of the authorities. But the reason for
their having not done so remains unanswered. And that
raises doubts about the veracity of the case set up by the
petitioners to terminate services of the present
respondents and many more. Thus, the FSL report,
which is the solitary evidence relied upon by the
petitioners was not tested in accordance with law
through even investigation by police, what to say of a
court conducting criminal trial.
17. Coming to the argument of petitioners that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Monu Tomar
(supra) directed only supply of relevant documents, on
the basis whereof the successful candidates had to
submit representations and the same was complied
with, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not direct that no
departmental enquiry be conducted against those
successful candidates who had joined service, even if a
stigmatic order of termination of services had to be
passed. Further, it appears from order dated 13.07.2017
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Monu Tomar (supra)
that what was presented before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was that some of the candidates appearing in the
examination had resorted to malpractices; and it was
not disclosed that some of the successful candidates had
already been issued appointment letters and they had
joined the services. The said order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dealt with basically those successful
candidates who were yet to be issued appointment
letters. It is under those circumstances that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the said case directed that a formal
show cause notice to those andidates was dispensed
with and that they be personally called and explained
the allegations so that they may submit
their representations for final decision.
18. In the case of Palak Modi (supra) relied upon by
learned counsel for petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court traversed through plethora of judicial
pronouncements including the decision of the
Constitution Bench in the case of Samsher Singh
(supra) and reiterated that a probationer has no right
to hold the post and his services can be terminated at
any time during or at the end of probation period on
account of his general unsuitability; that if the
competent authority holds inquiry for judging the
suitability of the probationer, and on basis thereof his
services are terminated, action of the authority cannot
be castigated as punitive; and that if the allegation of
misconduct constitutes the foundation of the action
taken, the ultimate decision of the competent authority
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

12
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

can be nullified on the grounds of violation of principles
of natural justice. The judgment in the case of
Chatrapal (supra) can be of no help to the petitioners
because the same dealt with scope of the High Court
while examining the report of the Inquiry Officer in
domestic inquiries.
19. To conclude, the present respondents had already
joined services after being declared successful in the
recruitment process but their services were terminated
under probation period by way of a detailed stigmatic
order without conducting a departmental enquiry and
that too on the basis of only a weak piece of evidence in
the form of unproved FSL report, therefore,
termination of services of the present respondents
cannot be sustained.
20. In view of above discussion, we are unable to find
any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned
Tribunal, so the same is upheld and the petition is
dismissed.”
13. It is also apparent that though apparently, the
aforesaid circular dated 17.04.2025 is not endorsed to
Punjab circle, however, once it is undisputed that the
issue in respect of the applicants belonging to the
Punjab circle is also identical to the applicants
belonging to the other circles, to which the said
communication dated 17.04.2025 has been endorsed,
why and how a different view can be taken by Punjab
circle, which is also part and parcel of Respondent No.
1.
14. In view of the aforesaid, judgement of a Coordinate
Bench of this Tribunal, which has been upheld by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the SLP filed against the
same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and
also in the light of such decisions along with a few
others, the Respondent No. 1 has taken a policy decision
on 17.04.2025 (supra), we are of the considered view
that the objections raised by the respondents qua the
claim of any of the applicants to be barred by limitation
and/or the applicants not to be entitled to file the OA
jointly, are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
15. In view of the aforesaid, the captioned OAs are
allowed with following orders:-
(i) The order(s) regarding termination of services of the
applicants and/or the selection of the applicants, being
withdrawn for the post(s), referred to hereinabove, are
set
aside.
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

13
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

(ii) The applicants shall be entitled for the consequential
benefits in terms of the respondents’ aforesaid decision
dated 17.04.2025.
(iii) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by
the respondents as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this Order.
(iv) If any of the grievances of the applicants still
survive, the applicant shall be at liberty to agitate the
same afresh in accordance with law.
(v) The respondents shall be at liberty to take
appropriate action if they so decide, however, of course,
in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions
on the subject.
16. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall
be no order as to costs.”

9. Further, the circular dated 05.06.2026 referred to and
relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is
reproduced as under:-
“To,
All Heads of Circles.
Subject: PA/SA Direct Recruitment for Vacancy Years 2011-12
& 2013-14 and the PM/MG Direct Recruitment held during the
year 2016-Handling of Court Cases involving adverse CFS
Reports, wherein Judicial Orders have been passed in favour
of the Applicants - regarding.
Madam/Sir,
This is regarding handling of Court Cases relating to
PA/SA Direct Recruitment for Vacancy Years 2011-12 & 2013-
14 and PM/MG Direct Recruitment held during 2016,
involving adverse CFS Reports, wherein Judicial Orders have
been passed in favour of the Applicants. These cases broadly
pertain to candidates against whom action was taken solely
on the including cancellation of candidature, termination
under temporary service rules, dismissal from service upon
conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, or cases where
disciplinary proceedings are still pending.
2. Aggrieved of the above actions by the Circles, the
candidates approached various judicial forums and the
matters are decided in their favour. With dismissal of SLPs
filed by the Department in such matters, the Department is left
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

14
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

with limited scope viz. to implement the judicial orders in
accordance with law.
3. Several cases have already been examined at the
Directorate level after obtaining legal advice from DoLA. After
approval of Secretary (Posts), concerned Circles have
accordingly been directed to implement the court orders.
However, proposals relating to implementation of such settled
judicial decisions continue to be referred to the Directorate for
examination and approval.
4. The matter has been examined and it has been decided
that such settled matters will be examined and decided at the
Circle level itself, subject to adherence to the settled legal
position and extant Rules/instructions.
5. Accordingly, the Circles may take appropriate decisions
in such cases with the approval of the Head of the Circle,
adhering to the following conditions:
(a) Each case shall be examined independently and the
orders passed by the Hon'ble Courts shall be
implemented in letter and spirit, including
reinstatement and consequential benefits, restoration
of candidature and dropping of disciplinary
proceedings, wherever applicable under Rules,
provided the case is based solely on adverse CFSL
reports.
(b) The principle of "No Work No Pay" shall be applied
wherever applicable, in accordance with extant
Rules/instructions.
(c) Action, if otherwise warranted, will continue/be
taken on the grounds independent of the CFS report,
such as mismatch of signatures or any other
irregularity supported by evidence.
(d) Circle will be responsible if the court orders are
implemented in variation of these directions.
6. This issues with the approval of the Member (P).”

10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the present OA is allowed with following orders:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 04.01.2017 and 31.08.2018
are set aside.
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA

15
O.A. No. 2543/2026

Item No. 33 (C-2)

(ii) The applicant shall be entitled for all consequential
benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and
instructions on the subject.
(iii) The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the
respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.
(iv) The respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate
action against the applicant, if they so decide; however, in
accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the
subject and independent of CFSL report referred to and
relied upon by the respondents while passing the impugned
order, such as mismatch of signatures or any other
irregularity supported by a witness.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.


(Rajinder Kashyap) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)




/ aks/
AKANSHA
2026.09.01
17:47:24
+05'30'
AKANSHA