Central Administrative Tribunal
Gaddala Satish vs NUCLEAR FUEL COMPLEX on 8 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/21/1960/2024
HYDERABAD, this the 8th day of October, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member Hon’ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member Gaddala Satish, S/o. Late G. Manikyam, Aged around 45 years, Occ: Technician G (compulsorily retired), NFC, R/o. Quarter No. D71-III, DAE Colony, PO: ECIL, Hyderabad - 500062.
... Applicant.
(By Advocate: Dr. S Goverdhan Rao)
Vs.
1.
Chairman & Chief Executive,
Nuclear Fuel Complex,
PO: ECIL, Hyderabad – 500062.
2.
Chief Administrative Officer,
Nuclear Fuel Complex,
PO: ECIL, Hyderabad – 500062.
… Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mrs. B Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC)
----
Location:
KUDARU
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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.
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)
By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s): “That this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interest of Justice may be pleased to hold that the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the applicant vide Order No. NFC/Vig/1/01/6214/2024/1190 dated 04.10.2024, from the date of effect of the order on the ground of conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as wholly unjustified and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the gravity of complaint under NI Act cannot be equated with an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or other criminal offences and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala observed that violation of NI Act has to be treated as a technical offence not involving any moral turpitude and cannot be classified as one coming under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA Rules) for imposing major penalty and accordingly set aside the same and direct the Respondents herein to reinstate him in service with immediate effect with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit, proper, necessary and expedient in the circumstances of the case.”
2. When the matter has been taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to Impugned Order dt. 04.10.2024, whereby the penalty of „Compulsory Retirement was imposed upon the applicant. The applicant‟s case hinges on the contention that the punishment of compulsory retirement is harsh and disproportionate, having been imposed on account of his conviction for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 255(2) of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that such a harsh punishment cannot be imposed solely on this ground in the light of principles of service jurisprudence. Further, during the course of the arguments, it was pointed out that the Impugned Order dt. 04.10.2024 provides for an Appeal to be preferred within 45 days. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present case is exceptional and that the applicant may, therefore, approach this Tribunal directly, in light of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1, decided on 26.10.1998.
Location:
KUDARU
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the applicant has approached this Tribunal without exhausting the available departmental remedy of preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is contended that, in terms of Rule 27 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
4. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the applicant, on instructions, submitted that he may be permitted to file Appeal within 45 days, with the benefit of exclusion of the period spent in pursuing the present Original Application before this Tribunal under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
5. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the applicant is permitted to prefer a departmental appeal before the Competent Appellate Authority within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The period spent by the applicant in pursuing the present Original Application before this Tribunal shall stand excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation for filing the departmental appeal. The Appellate Authority shall entertain and decide the Appeal on its own merits without rejecting the same on the ground of limitation. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the case
6. With the aforesaid liberty and directions, the OA is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /Ram/
Location:
KUDARU