Surendra Kumar Soni vs SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY on 6 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR Order Sheet Item no.: 12 O.A./1062/2026 (BILASPUR) [ REVERSION ] Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 06/11/2026 SURENDRA KUMAR SONI Vs SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Shri A.V. Shridhar For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri Ramakant Mishra Order of The Tribunal Heard Shri A.V. Shridhar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ramakant Mishra, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of respondents on advance notice. Issue notice to the respondents as per rules to file reply within four weeks. The applicant’s counsel has sought for interim relief whereby he seeks a stay on the effect and operation of the show cause notice dated 26.10.2026 on the ground that the said show cause notice merely constitutes an empty formality and suffers from the flaws being ambiguous and also on the ground of jurisdiction. The learned counsel also submits that there should have been an explicit mention of the documents, which were sought to be relied upon by the concerned authority in taking the proposed action. What is necessary in such cases is that the reasons must be clearly and explicitly stated so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. However, the applicant has submitted a representation dated 29.10.2026 seeking certain information which is yet to be provided by the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that consequent to the selection, the applicant has already joined the promotional post in May, 2026.

The learned counsel for the applicant has also contended that the cancellation of promotion on the ground that a candidate has not secured the required marks for passing is permissible only if there is any fraud or malpractice or irregularities in the conduct of the examination or evaluation or if the candidate himself is guilty of any malpractice or suppression of facts or any wrongful act. In the present case, no such reasons have been disclosed or pointed out by the respondents. Therefore, in absence of the same, a mere change in marks, as a result of a re-evaluation cannot be a ground for cancelling the promotion. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of P. Shiva Vs. UOI & Ors – 2003 Supreme (Kar) 735 and has prayed to stay the effect and operation of the show cause notice dated 26.10.2026. On the other hand, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents has produced the order dated 05.11.2026 and submitted that since the representation of the applicant dated 29.10.2026 has been decided by the respondents department, the challenge to the show cause notice has become infructuous. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant has stated that representation dated 29.10.2026 submitted by the applicant was not in response to reply of show cause notice. Instead the applicant has sought certain information through the said representation so as to be able to respond the show cause notice properly. Having considered the submissions of both the learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that vide representation dated 29.10.2026, the applicant has sought certain information in order to reply the show cause notice. However, the respondents have not considered the said representation in letter and spirit and have passed order dated 05.11.2026. Thus, I am of the considered opinion, the applicant has made out a case for interim protection. Accordingly, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the applicant till the next date. List on 08.01.2027 for filing of reply. Smt Mallika Arya Member (A)

Anand Dubey ( ps )