Central Administrative Tribunal
Janumula Madhu Babu vs BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE (BARC) on 4 November 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00827/2026
HYDERABAD, this the, 04th Day of November, 2026
HON’BLE MR. MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Janumula Madhu Babu, S/o. J.Hanumantha Rao Aged about 55 yrs, Occ : Scientific Officer E
H.No.23-5-630/1, Lal Darwaza, Hyderabad-65.
…..Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. P.Ravi Kiran)
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by its Under Secretary to the Government of India Vigilance Section, Department of Atomic Energy Anushakthi Bhavan, C.S.M. Marg, Mumbai-400001.
2. The Controller, BARC, Trombay Mumbai – 400085.
3. The Chief Administrative Officer (p), BARC
Trombay, Mumbai – 400085.
….Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. Megha Rani Agarwal, Sr.PC for CG)
******
Location:
PANDIRLAP
ALLI
SANDHYA
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.
ORAL ORDER
PER: HON’BLE SHRI MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. In the instant OA, the applicant is seeking the following relief: “…to set aside the order No.VIG-V15/12/2018-VIG-DAE (VOL- II)/2072 DT: 16/2/2026 issued by the respondent No.1 by declaring the order as illegal, arbitrary and not maintainable in the eye of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was issued with a charge memo under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the enquiry was conducted into the charges and UPSC advice was also sought for as the applicant being a Group ‘A’ Officer. Upon consideration of UPSC advice and the representations of the applicant, the President of India, has imposed a penalty of ‘Reduction to lower time- scale of pay for a period of 3 years, which shall be a bar to his promotion during the penalty period, with direction that he will not earn increments of pay during this period and after expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments, with further direction that on promotion he shall not regain his original seniority in the higher time scale of pay”, on the applicant, vide order, dt.16.02.2026. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed Review Appeal, dt.07.04.2026, to the 1st Respondent.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that, despite the lapse of six months since the filing of review application, the 1st respondent has not responded to it.
Location:
PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA
4. Be that as it may, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either side, it is directed to dispose of the review appeal, dt.07.04.2026, of the applicant, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case.
5. With the above direction, the OA is disposed of at the admission stage. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Manish Garg) Administrative Member
Judicial Member
04.11.2026
/ps/
Location:
PANDIRLAP ALLI SANDHYA