UNION OF INDIA & ANR. vs RAJ KUMAR

Judgment text excerpt

$~105 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 14.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 5262/2025 & CM APPL. 23936/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC versus RAJ KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral) 1. This petition challenges the Order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (PB), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2 of 2019, titled Raj Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr., allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent herein and directing the petitioner herein to grant all consequential benefits to the respondent in accordance with relevant rules and instructions, pursuant to the setting aside of the show cause notice dated 12.08.2016, impugned disciplinary Order dated 23.09.2016, and the appellate Order dated 13.11.2018. 2. The present petition has been filed on or about 02.04.2025, that is, more than two years after the passing of the Impugned Order. No explanation has been tendered by the learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIJAYA W.P.(C) 5262/2025 Page 1 of 2 LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:17.05.2025 11:47:16 petitioners for this delay. We further note that the learned Tribunal in its impugned Order had set aside the inquiry proceedings as being in violation of Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and on a finding that the show cause notice issued to the respondent communicating the disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of the Inquiry Officer’s report did not give any reasons for the said disagreement. 3. Keeping in view the above and the enormous delay in filing of the petition, and even though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not