Central Administrative Tribunal
JANGJIT SINGH vs HOME AFFAIRS on 30 October 2026
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.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH 61/35, COPERNICUS MARG,NEW DELHI-110001 Order Sheet Item no.: 5 O.A./4329/2026 (DELHI) [ DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING ] [ SENIOR CITIZEN ] Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 30/10/2026 JANGJIT SINGH Vs HOME AFFAIRS
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. Sachin Chauhan For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kumar Tyagi Order of The Tribunal In the present O.A., the applicant has challenged an order dated 28.07.2026 vide which a regular departmental enquiry has been ordered against the applicant.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2023 and vide impugned order, the respondents have initiated departmental inquiry for the alleged incidence prior to 4 years of his retirement and thus, the same is in violation of the Provisions of Rule 8(2)(c)(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2022. He further submits that the action of the respondents is not only against the Provisions of the aforesaid Rules but also in violation of an order/judgment dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure A-21) of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A./1959/2020 titled Mohd. Hakim Khan vs. DDA & Ors., stated to have been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order/judgment dated 19.05.2006 in W.P. (C) No. 6970/2026 (Annexure A-22).
3. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Ajay Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel, who appears for the respondents on advance service, accepts notice.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant presses for grant of interim relief in the form of stay of the impugned order. He submits that the applicant is having a strong prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience also lies in applicant's favour. He further submits that on face of it, it is evident that the incident relates to year 2006 and/or 2018. If that is many years prior to the retirement of the applicant from service, he submits that when the respondents have chosen not to initiate any departmental inquiry all along for many years prior to the date of the retirement of the applicant, if the proceedings are stayed, at least, till the next date of hearing, no irreversible prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondents.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, requests for some time to enable the respondents to file reply.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. Prima facie, we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. In the facts and circumstances, as an interim measure, the respondents are directed not to go ahead with the departmental inquiry, pursuant to the impugned order dated 28.07.2026 till the next date of hearing.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter reply.
9. Applicant may file rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter.
10. List the matter on 21.12.2026.
Sanjeeva Kumar Member (A) R. N. Singh Member (J) Dhruv Mehra ( steno 'd' )