Central Administrative Tribunal
MOHINDER PAL vs HOME DEPARTMENT on 31 December 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAMMU
Order Sheet
Item no.: 41
O.A./2061/2025 (JAMMU)
[ DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE ]
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment: 1
Order Dated: 31/12/2025
MOHINDER PAL
Vs
HOME DEPARTMENT
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. Waheed Choudhary For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Thapa, A.A.G.
Order of The Tribunal
(THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. While issuing notices to respondents on 26.12.2025, the prayer of the applicant for grant of interim relief with regard to staying of the impugned Order No. 2268 of 2025 dated 05.12.2025, was deferred till the next date of hearing for filing of short reply by the respondents.
2. Today, reply has not been filed by the respondents.
3. The applicant in the O.A. has mainly sought the relief of quashing of order No. 2268 of 2025 dated 05.12.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2, whereby the applicant has been dismissed form services.
4. From the perusal of record, it transpires that with regard to verification of genuineness of date of birth certificate of the applicant, the Respondent No.2 referred the matter to Crime Branch (EoW), Jammu for its investigation vide communication dated 27.01.2025, however, the impugned order has been passed by Respondent No. 2 without taking into consideration the investigation conducted by the Crime Branch in case FIR No. 35 registered under Section 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the RPC, which was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Jammu, whereby the applicant has been exonerated from the allegations with regard to forgery in his date of birth.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, we are of the considered view that the applicant has been able to make out a prima facie case for indulgence.
6. Accordingly, as an interim measure, subject to objections from other side and till the next date of hearing, the operation of impugned order dated 05.12.2025 shall remain stayed. Consequently, the applicant shall be permitted to perform his duties at the place where he was working before passing of the impugned order.
7. List on 13.02.2026.
8. Let reply be filed by the respondents by or on the next date of hearing with advance copy to learned counsel for the applicant. Pragya Sahay Saksena Member (A) Sanjeev Gupta Member (J) Arun Kumar ( ps )