Dr Sanjay Liye vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 4 November 2026

ORDER

The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs: “8(a) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondents and after examining the same, quash and set aside order dated 11.12.2025; (b) Hold and declare that the applicant has retired from service under Rule 43 of CCS Pension Rules, 2021 w.e.f. 15.01.2026 and the applicant be paid all retiral benefits including all consequential benefits along with interest @12% p.a.;

(c) Costs of the application be provided for; (d) Any other and further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that he was initially appointed on the post of Postal Assistant in the year 1992. Thereafter, upon clearing various departmental examinations, the applicant eventually cleared the Group ‘B’ departmental examination and came to be appointed as Assistant Director (Circle Office) on 03.06.2019. He was posted at Mumbai (East) as a Senior Superintendent of Post Offices on 19.02.2024 and was also given additional charge of Mumbai (South) Division.

Location:

Alphanso

2.1 Due to heart attack on 25.07.2016, he had to undergo emergency angioplasty. Thereafter, he has suffered from an attack of facial palsy (Bell’s Palcy) on 29.09.2022 and thereafter he was detected with Tuberculosis on 19.06.2024 and was subjected to admission in the hospital in respect of some lung related issue in the month of May, 2025. On these reasons, the applicant applied for VRS vide application dated 12.09.2025. However, in the said application, there was an innocuous mistake in respect of misquoted the relevant rules. 2.2 Further, he was transferred on 12.09.2025 to Dhule. The said order was received by the applicant through Email on 15.09.2025. He joined at transferred place on 29.09.2025 and thereafter, again transferred to Parbhani on 29.10.2025 whereas he joined on 10.11.2025. In the meanwhile, while the applicant was posted at Dhule on 13.10.2025, he received a letter dated 08.10.2025 stating therein that his application for VRS was filed as unactioned on account of the fact that the VRS notice was not addressed to the appropriate authority, quoted incorrect rule in

Location:

Alphanso

Proforma ‘A’ and check list points for consideration of voluntary retirement were not submitted. It was directed that the VRS notice was required to be submitted to the appropriate authority to quote the correct rule number in the Proforma ‘A’. Alongwith the letter dated 08.10.2025, the letter dated 25.09.2025 issued from the Office of Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai was forwarded to the applicant. Even in the said letter, it was stated that there are discrepancies noticed in the VRS application. Thereafter, the applicant has submitted a fresh application of VRS on 13.10.2025 to the appropriate authority alongwith necessary annexures. The new VRS application was submitted through the Postmaster General to the Cadre Controlling authority being the Director General of Posts at New Delhi. 2.3 Further, on 19.11.2025, a check list was forwarded by the Regional Office at Sambhaji Nagar to the applicant. A copy of this check list was also forwarded by the Regional Office to the Competent Authority. By letter dated 28.11.2025, the Regional Office forwarded the voluntary retirement notice of

Location:

Alphanso the applicant for retirement w.e.f. 15.01.2026 to the Chief Postmaster General (Staff) Maharashtra. It was also stated that the said voluntary retirement application dated 13.10.2025 alongwith check list and vigilance clearance report was forwarded for necessary action. The said letter dated 28.11.2025 was received by the Superintendent of Post offices on 01.12.2025 at Parbhani. In view of the aforesaid, the applicant was expecting that he would be relieved from service w.e.f. 15.01.2026. However, to his absolute shock, the respondent No.1 vide impugned office order dated 11.12.2025 rejected the application of VRS of the applicant without assigning any reason in that regard. It is pertinent to note that while dealing with the application for VRS dated 13.10.2025, the competent authority has shockingly considered the earlier application of the applicant dated 12.09.2025. The aforesaid order was forwarded to the applicant by the office of the Postmaster General, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar Region by letter dated 17.12.2025. 2.4 It is stated that as the health of the applicant was deteriorating, therefore, he has

Location:

Alphanso submitted application dated 14.01.2026 applied for earned leave. The aforesaid impugned order dated 11.12.2025 is challenged by the applicant on the ground that the same was ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary and ab- initio void. It is contended that the applicant is entitled to apply for VRS upon completing 20 years so qualifying service as per Rule 43(1)of the CCS(Pension) rules, 2021. The respondents can only withhold the said permission for voluntary retirement under Rule 43(3) in the three circumstances”

i. If the government servant is under suspension; or

ii. If a chargesheet is pending against the government servant; or

iii. If judicial proceedings on charges which may amount of grave misconduct are pending.

None of the aforesaid three circumstances are applicable to the case of the applicant. The applicant is not under suspension, no chargesheet is pending against him and no judicial proceedings are pending against him. Therefore, there was absolutely no reason for the respondents to reject the application of the applicant for retiring voluntarily under Rule 43 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021.

Location:

Alphanso

2.5 It is further submitted that in view of the health issue, the respondents cannot force the applicant to continue to work beyond 15.01.2026. It is further submitted that once VRS application dated 15.09.2025 was closed as unactioned, therefore, while issuing the impugned office order dated 11.12.2025, consideration of the said application is illegal and without application of mind. 2.6 The applicant has placed reliance on the order of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Arun Vithal Subhedar Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & 3 Ors., OA No.210/00307/2019 decided on 08.01.2020 in which this Tribunal has quashed and set aside the similar non-speaking order and held that the applicant therein was entitled for consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.

3. After notice, the official respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. 3.1 It is stated that the applicant had applied for VRS on medical grounds. The applicant accepted hat he had quoted an incorrect rule in his VRS application dated 12.09.2025.

Location:

Alphanso

3.2 It is stated that the substantive cadre of the applicant is Postal Service Group ‘B’ (PS Group ‘B’). Vide Postal Directorate Order No.4-2/2023-SPG dated 02.02.2024, the applicant was promoted on an ad hoc basis to the Junior Time Scale (JTS) of the Indian Postal Service (IPoS), Group ‘A’. Pursuant to the said ad hoc promotion order, the applicant was posted as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (SSPOs), Mumbai East Division, Mumbai. While serving in the said capacity, the applicant was transferred in the interest of service to SSPOs, Dhule Division under the Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar Region vide Maharashtra Circle Office Order No.STA/6-1/2024 Adhoc JTS Gr.’A’ dated 12.09.2025. The adhoc promotion of the applicant, alongwith four other officers of the Maharashtra Circle was subsequently terminated by the Postal Directorate vdie order No.R-04/13/2024-SPG-DOP dated 15.10.2025. Upon such reversion, the applicant was allotted to the same Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar Region in his substantive cadre of PS Group ‘B’. Postings of PS Group ‘B’ officers are issued at the Regional level. Accordingly, the Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar Region

Location:

Alphanso issued the applicant’s posting as Superintendent of Post Offices (SPOs), Parbhani Division. At the time of the applicant’s reversion, two vacancies existed in the PS Group ‘B’ cadre within the Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar Region, namely:(1) Deputy Superintendent of Post Offices, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar Division, and(ii) SPOs, Parbhani Division. As per the Minutes of the Transfer and Placement Committee dated 27.10.2025, the applicant was posted as SPOs, Parbhani Division vide Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar Region order dated 28.10.2025 and the applicant subsequently joined the said post on 10.11.2025. The order dated 12.09.2025 pertained to the applicant’s posting in the adhoc JTS Group ‘A’ cadre as SSPOs, Dhule Division, whereas the subsequent order dated 28.10.2025 pertained to his posting in the substantive PS Group ‘B’ cadre as SPOs, Parbhani Division. 3.3 It is further submitted that the applicant himself has admitted in para No.4.2 that there were mistakes in the VRS application submitted by him. In view of the same, the Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle conveyed the relevant

Location:

Alphanso facts to the Office of the Postmaster General, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar Region, for necessary compliance so that the VRS application could be processed further. Thereafter, the Office of the Postmaster General, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar Region communicated the said discrepancies to the applicant and called upon him to rectify and comply with the same. 3.4 It is submitted that the applicant had submitted a revised VRS application dated 13.10.2025. The first VRS application of the applicant was under examination in the office of respondent No.2. However, certain discrepancies were noticed in the VRS application dated 15.09.2025 submitted by the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant was informed about the said discrepancies and the application was treated as unactioned on account of the discrepancies noticed. In the case of the applicant, a confidential note was received from the vigilance Officer, Maharashtra Circle regarding the use of fake stamps by franchises at BPC Dadar under the Mumbai East Division. Prima facie, staff of Dadar Head Office has been found

Location:

Alphanso to be involved in the use of fake stamps and the investigation in the said matter is presently in progress. The applicant was working as SSPOs, Mumbai East Division from 19.02.2024. In order to ensure a fair and effective inquiry, respondent No.2 transferred the applicant and posted him as SSPOs, Dhule Division in the interest of service vide order dated 12.09.2025. During the process of transfer and the transit period, the applicant submitted VRS notices dated 12.09.2025 and 15.09.2025 containing certain discrepancies, which were communicated to him vide Annexure A-6 of OA. 3.5 It is submitted that the direct or indirect involvement of the applicant in the fake stamp fraud cannot be ruled out at this stage, particularly, when the VRS application was submitted while the inquiry was in progress. The applicant belongs to the Postal Service Group B cadre and the Appointing Authority for the said cadre is the Director General, Postal Services, Postal Directorate, New Delhi. Accordingly, the entire matter, along with the VRS application dated 15.09.2025 was forwarded to the Postal Directorate,

Location:

Alphanso being the competent authority in the case of the applicant. The competent authority i.e. respondent No.1, after due consideration, took appropriate action and rejected the VRS request of the applicant vide order at Annexure A-1 of OA. 3.6 It is submitted that the applicant had applied for leave and his leave was granted by the competent authority from 16.01.2026 to 23.03.2026. 3.7 So far as the order relied by the applicant is concerned, it is stated that each case has to be considered on its own facts, merits, submissions, arguments and documents on record. The respondents have already brought to the notice of the Tribunal the fake stamps case at BPC Dadar, which occurred during the period when the applicant was serving as SSPOs, Mumbai East Division.

4. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed by the applicant elaborating and reiterating his stand. 4.1 In respect of respondents stand, it is stated that the respondents are referring to the so called ‘confidential note’. The respondents have further averred that “…direct or indirect involvement of the

Location:

Alphanso applicant in the fake stamp fraud cannot be ruled out at this stage, particularly when the VRS application was submitted while the inquiry was in progress.’ The CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021 do not provide for rejection of VRS application only on the ground of preliminary investigation being in progress. The only three circumstances in which VRS application can be rejected are:-

i. If the government servant is under suspension; or

ii. If the chargesheet is pending against the government servant; or

iii. If that judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct are pending.

Thus, the respondents have illegally rejected representation of the applicant for VRS in complete violation of Rule 43(3) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021. 4.2 It is further stated that an officer can said to be under clouds into three circumstances when he is under suspension or if a chargesheet is pending against the applicant or judicial proceedings are pending against the applicant. The respondents are stretching this to include cases where preliminary/police

Location:

Alphanso investigations are in progress. The Rule does not provide for such circumstances to be considered for rejection of VRS.

5. Thereafter, sur-rejoinder was also filed by the respondents reiterating their earlier stand.

6. I have heard Shri Vishal Shirke, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Naveena Kumai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that due to heart attack in the year 2016, attack of facial palsy (Bell’s Palcy) in the year 2022 and detection of Tuberculosis on 19.06.2024, the applicant has submitted application for voluntary retirement on 12.09.2025. However, due to certain discrepancy, the same was informed to be unactioned. Therefore, fresh application for VRS was submitted on 13.10.2025 with all necessary details and check list. 7.1 During course of the arguments, learned counsel specifically pointed out Annexure A-8 (Page 29 of OA) dated 19.11.2025, the check list prepared by the departmental authorities in which at serial Nos.9

Location:

Alphanso

and 10 which are the columns in respect of any inquiry or investigation or disciplinary case is pending or contemplated. Further, in respect of suspension or punishment is current or pending. Against these both columns, the authority itself has recorded “NA”. Further, as per serial No.8, the applicant has completed qualifying service of more than 30 years i.e. 33 years, 5 months and 15 days. It is submitted that on the date of consideration of the VRS application, neither there is any suspension order was issued nor chargesheet was pending nor any judicial proceedings were pending and, therefore, as per Rule 43(1) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021, the rejection of the applicant’s application for VRS vide communication dated 11.12.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. 7.2 It is further submitted that looking to the aforesaid order, it is clear that the same is non- speaking one and in similar circumstances, this Tribunal in OA No.307/2019 quashed and set aside the similar non-speaking order by which VRS application was rejected. It is further submitted that even looking

Location:

Alphanso to the stand taken by the respondents in respect of use of fake stamps even then when the statutory rule does not prescribe rejection of VRS application on some investigation, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. 7.3 It is further submitted that in terms of Rule 43, after notice period, the applicant is deemed to have been retired w.e.f. 15.01.2026 and, therefore, even if the applicant has submitted another application for leave on 14.01.2026, even then the same cannot be used against the applicant. It is true that even after 15.01.2026, the applicant has received the salary but fact remains that as per law, the respondents are required to release pension and retiral dues and in this regard, representation dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure A-14) was submitted by the applicant to which communication dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure A-15) was received to the applicant. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and it may be hold that the applicant stood retired w.e.f. 15.01.2026 by extending all retiral benefits with interest.

Location:

Alphanso

8. On the other hand, on the basis of reply and sur-rejoinder, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that in the facts and circumstances as emerged from the record, the competent authority has rightly rejected the application for VRS vide communication dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure A-1). It is further submitted that just prior to one day of 15.01.2025, the applicant has submitted leave application on 14.01.2026 (Annexure A-11). The said leave was sanctioned by the competent authority. She has further submitted that even thereafter the leave was sanctioned to the applicant upto 23.03.2026 which is clear from communication dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure A-15). 8.1

Learned counsel for the respondents during course of the arguments relied upon the following judgements and orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court and Principal Bench of this Tribunal :

(i) Union of India and Others Vs. M. Duraisamy, Civil appeal No.2665/2022 decided on 19.04.2022

Location:

Alphanso

(ii) Sanjeev Singh Ahluwalia Vs. Union of India and Others decided by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No.9540/2019 decided on 30.09.2019.

(iii) Dr. Gautam Talukdar Vs. Union of India through, The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi & Anr., Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, OA No.3004/2023 decided on 28.11.2023

On the aforesaid basis, it is submitted that there is no ground of interference in this OA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, the facts are not much in dispute. At the outset, the contention of the applicant that by office order dated 11.12.2025, the competent authority has also taken into consideration the earlier application dated 15.09.2025 is concerned, it is true that the same is recorded in the impugned order but fact remains that when the said application was filed as unactioned which is clear from letter dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure A-5), then mentioning of the said notice dated 15.09.2025 is at the best can be said to be improper. Even otherwise looking to the prayer of the applicant for declaring him retired

Location:

Alphanso w.e.f. 15.01.2026 and the said prayer was made only in respect of notice dated 13.10.2025 and, therefore, this Tribunal is examining the legality and validity of the impugned order taking note of the fresh VRS application dated 13.10.2025. It is the case of the applicant that in terms of Rule 43(1) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021, since there is no suspension order or chargesheet is pending or any judicial proceedings are pending against the applicant on the date of consideration of the application for VRS and, therefore, rejection of this application vide communication dated 11.12.2025 is illegal and contrary to law.

10. At this stage, it is relevant here to reproduce Rule 43 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021 which reads as under: “43. Retirement on completion of twenty years’ qualifying service.-

(1) ………

(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule(1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:

Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the

Location:

Alphanso date of expiry of the said period.

(3) It shall be open to the appropriate appointing authority to withhold permission to a Government servant who seeks to retire under this rule in the following circumstances,-

(i) if the Government servant is under suspension; or

(ii) If a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; or

(iii) If judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct are pending.

Provided that in cases where the appointing authority proposes to accept the notice of voluntary retirement in spite of the circumstances referred to in this sub-rule, approval of President shall be obtained.”

Looking to Rule 43(2), it is clear that proviso to aforesaid rule clearly provides that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. In the present case, VRS application was submitted on 13.10.2025 for VRS w.e.f 15.01.2026 whereas the impugned order was issued on 11.12.2025 (Annexure A-1) in pursuance of communication dated 17.12.2025 (Annexure A-10) meaning thereby, prior to

Location:

Alphanso

completion of statutory period of VRS notice, the rejection was already informed to the applicant and, therefore, in terms of the aforesaid proviso to sub- rule 2 of Rule 43, it cannot be held that the retirement of the applicant become effective w.e.f. 15.01.2026. On this count, the applicant is not entitled for relief prayed in para 8(b) of the OA.

11. Now the question remains for consideration is whether the impugned communication dated 11.12.2025 is liable to be set aside on the ground that the same is illegal. In this regard, the stand of the department has already recorded in the preceding paragraphs.

12. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjeev Singh Ahluwalia (supra) pleased to observe as under: “19. We have heard counsel for the parties. While certain specific matters relating to Rules 16(2) and 16(2A) of All India Services (Death-cum- Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 as also of O.M. dated 25.11.1958 have been canvassed, certain larger issues of responsibility and discipline in government service also engage us in the matter. Before the petitioner seeks to rely on certain rules or to explain the inapplicability of the O.M., he must first answer as to what justifies the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from government service in India by staying away and devoting his time to a foreign posting, for which he had sought and was granted leave only for one year but stayed away for an extra six years and more. The petitioner must then explain as to how he justifies relying on hypertechnical ruse of deemed voluntary retirement and lame excuses of family circumstances when faced with a straight and simple question of unauthorized absence from his duties as a senior

Location:

Alphanso administrative service officer in India. The sheer callous conduct on the part of the petitioner is disappointing and even worrisome. If this kind of indiscipline and brazenness is to be accepted in the name of technical interpretation of service rules, it would only encourage officials in senior and responsible positions to behave in the same irresponsible manner, with deleterious consequences for the administration and governance of the country. The timing of filing of the application for seeking voluntary retirement is telling and shows how a senior and responsible officer of the administrative services has sought to escape the consequences arising from his own egregious default of unauthorized absence from duties in India, to save himself from the consequences. Had the same officer faced a situation of his subordinate behaving in this manner, we have no doubt that the officer would have sought for and visited such subordinate with the most grave consequences; but when it comes to himself, the petitioner seeks to hide behind the technicality that no acceptance is required for an application for seeking voluntary retirement and that mere expiration of period of notice means that he would be deemed to have been voluntary retired. Moreover, no explanation is forthcoming in regard to the interpretation of O.M. dated 25.11.1958, whereby even when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against the officer, an application for voluntary retirement "may not ordinarily be accepted". If there is a case where this provision is to be invoked against an officer, in our view, this is exactly such a case.”

13. In the case of Dr. Gautam Talukdar (supra), Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, after referring to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Baljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 1 SCC 754 was pleased to read as under: “5.2 In other words, this Rule also reiterates the conditions that withhold permission for government servants who retire under VRS. He states that these are not the only conditions, as they have not been mentioned in the said Rules, neither in Rule 56(k)(i) nor in the CCS Pension Rules 2021 under Rule 43, Sub-Rule 2.

Location:

Alphanso

In view of this, it is open to the Competent Authority to deny VRS under certain circumstances. He further cited a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases 754 in Dr. Baljit Singh v/s State of Haryana, wherein it was held: “4. It is seen in the service jurisprudence that before an incumbent attains superannuation while an enquiry is contemplated against him, it may be open to the Government to postpone the superannuation for continuance of pending discipliner proceeding for completing enquiry or to initiate action against a delinquent employee. When such is the situation, it will always be open to the Government to decide whether or not to permit an incumbent to retire from service. It is then contended by the learned counsel that when the petitioner had handed over the charge which was accepted by the officers, there is no scope for the Government to refuse acceptance of the resignation. We find no force in the contention. if the contention is given acceptance, it would lead to deleterious consequences. For instance, if a public servant commits misappropriation of funds of the Government, and after tendering his resignation and handing over the charge walks away with booty. Acceptance of such contention would lead to serious repercussions and consequences flowing therefrom would be disastrous to maintain discipline in service. Under these circumstances, until the acceptance or rejection of request for voluntary retirement is communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner is required to remain in office and his handing over the charge without any order of the competent authority and acceptance of his request

Location:

Alphanso for voluntary retirement have no result.

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.”

….

7.4. In the context, I do tend agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that ratio of the judgment in Dr. Baljit Singh (supra) and Anil Kumar Tyagi (supra) by Hon’ble High Court case is fairly applicable in the instant case, though that case deals with All India Services. But the import of the rationale of the judgment is equally applicable to other Group ‘A’ Services.

The above position has been reiterated by the Delhi High Court in Sanjeev Singh Ahluwalia v/s Union of India & Ors. in WP(C) 9340/2019 decided on 30.09.2019 wherein it has held:- “If this kind of indiscipline and brazenness is to be accepted in the name of technical interpretation of service rules, it would only encourage officials in senior and responsible positions to behave in the same irresponsible manner, with deleterious consequences for the administration and governance of the country. The timing of filing of the application for seeking voluntary retirement is telling and shows how a senior and responsible officer of the administrative services has sought to escape the consequences arising from his own egregious default of unauthorized absence from duties in India, to save himself from the consequences.”

Location:

Alphanso

14. So far judgement relied by respondents in the case of M. Duraisamy (supra) is concerned, the said case was respect of punishment from dismissal/removal from service to compulsory retirement is not helpful to the respondents.

15. In this view of the matter, taking note of the specific stand of the department in respect of the rejection of the application of the applicant for VRS, no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order dated 11.12.2025.

16. So far as the order relied by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Shri Arun Vithal Subhedar (supra) by this Tribunal is concerned, in para 5 of the order itself, it is recorded by this Tribunal that during the notice period no final decision was communicated by the respondents to the applicant and after expiry of the notice period, the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 25.03.2019 informing that the Competent Authority has rejected his request for seeking voluntary retirement from service under Rule 48 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 whereas in the present case, before the expiry of the

Location:

Alphanso notice period, the final decision was already communicated to the applicant through office order dated 11.12.2025 and, therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the aforesaid order is distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the present case and not helpful to the applicant.

17. So far as the contention raised by the applicant in respect of his representations dated 26.02.2026 and 06.03.2026 are concerned, the same is after the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 and is not required to be considered while considering the legality and proprietary of the order dated 11.12.2025 leaving the applicant to agitate his grievance, if any, before the competent forum in accordance with law, if so advised.

18. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, no ground is made out to interfere in the present OA. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.

(Umesh Gajankush) Member (J) ma.

Location:

Alphanso