Failure to challenge appellate order renders subsequent challenge to initial penalty order barred and non-maintainable.

The applicant, Sh. Sukh Raj, was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry wherein the Director (Inquiries) found charges against him proved on 24.01.2019

Consequently, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of "reduction in pay by one stage for one year until retirement" on 24.01.2020

The applicant filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appellate Authority) on 15.06.2021 on the grounds of being time-barred

In October 2021, the applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking to quash the inquiry report and the penalty order, but notably failed to challenge the Appellate Authority’s order dated 15.06.2021

1. Whether the OA is maintainable when the applicant failed to challenge the subsequent order passed by the Appellate Authority

2. Whether the omission of a prayer to set aside the Appellate Authority’s order attracts the principles of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandates that a plaintiff must include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings

DMC Services (Control Appeal) Regulations, 1959, specifically Section 16 regarding the limitation period for appeals and reviews

The Tribunal observed that the applicant was fully aware of the Appellate Authority’s order dated 15.06.2021, as it was passed and communicated prior to the filing of the OA in October 2021

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that the failure to challenge the appellate order was a mere "inadvertent" oversight by previous counsel, characterizing it instead as a deliberate choice not to assail the order

Since the appellate order (which upheld the penalty by dismissing the appeal as time-barred) remained in force and unchallenged, the prayer to merely quash the initial penalty order could not be sustained in isolation

The Tribunal dismissed the OA and all pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) with no order as to costs