CAT Imposes ₹10,000 Cost On Employee For Frivolous Plea Seeking His Own Suspension

The applicant, a Grade-I (DASS)/Section Officer, had earlier filed OA No. 3214/2026, which the Tribunal dismissed as premature on 20 August 2026.

He subsequently represented to the respondents seeking an order suspending him and, before six months had elapsed without a decision on that representation, filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

He sought a direction to issue the suspension order, described as necessary for “maturing” the earlier OA.

At admission, the Tribunal found that he had not challenged an order of the respondents and noted that he insisted on proceeding despite the Registry’s objections and the Tribunal’s offer to permit withdrawal and refiling.

Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 permits a person aggrieved by an order concerning a matter within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to apply for redress; the statutory definition covers orders made by the Government, specified authorities, or their officers and bodies.

Under Section 20(1)–(2), an application ordinarily should not be admitted until available service-rule remedies have been exhausted; where a representation or appeal has been made but no final order issued, the remedy is deemed exhausted after six months have elapsed.

The Tribunal also treated a request for the applicant’s own suspension as not being an ordinary legal remedy or relief.

No judicial precedents were relied upon.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had identified no respondent-issued order capable of being challenged under Section 19; rather, the application appeared to impugn the Tribunal’s dismissal of his earlier OA, which the Tribunal considered outside the statutory route invoked.

The applicant’s representation seeking his own suspension had not remained unanswered for six months, so the condition under Section 20 for deemed exhaustion of remedies was not met.

The Tribunal further observed that the applicant had not pleaded a genuine service grievance and had persisted with the defective application despite being offered the opportunity to withdraw and refile it.

It considered that persistence a misuse of the Tribunal’s time warranting costs.

It imposed exemplary costs of ₹10,000, payable to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within eight weeks, with a compliance report to be filed with the Registry.

Although the order separately states “No order as to costs,” it expressly directs payment of the ₹10,000 exemplary cost.