DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT vs DR. SONALI BADHE AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 30.07.2025 + W.P.(C) 11187/2025 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel, Mr.Vivek Gurnani, Panel counsel, Mr.Kartik Sabharwal, Mr.Pranjal Tripathi, Mr.Kanishk Mauarya, Advs. versus DR. SONALI BADHE AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 45989-90/2025 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 11187/2025 & CM APPL. 45988/2025 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in OA No.1117/2025, titled Dr.Sonali Badhe. v. The Directorate of Enforcement & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner herein against the maintainability of the said O.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed WP(C) 11187/2025 Page 1 of 2 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:01.08.2025 18:21:24 3. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the above O.A. on the following grounds: “(i) The OA was premature as the applicant had chosen not to reply to the impugned Charge-Sheet and directly approached this Tribunal. (ii) The OA is not maintainable in view of the multiple reliefs sought by the applicant. (iii) That the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has been impleaded as a party respondent, despite no relief being sought against it.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of the learned Tribunal on the above issues would prejudice the outcome of the O.A. itself. 5. As the impugned order has been passed only on the prelimin