Central Administrative Tribunal
PREM KUMAR SHARMA vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 5 November 2026
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
****
Original Application No.642 of 2024
This the 05th Day of November, 2026.
HON’BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J.
HON’BLE MS. MANJU PANDEY, MEMBER-A.
Prem Kumar Sharma, Aged about 58 years S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Sharma, R/o 272A/4M, Nyay Vihar Colony, Sulem Sarai, Prayagraj.
Presently working as Section Supervisor, O/o the Post Master General, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj.
….Applicant.
By Advocate: Mr. Aman Sharma.
Versus
1.
Union
of
India,
through
its
Secretary,
Ministry
of
Communications, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, 110001.
2.
The Post Master General, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj-
211001.
3.
The Director Postal Services, Prayagraj Region, Prayagraj-
211001.
4.
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR of Postal Services, PMG office, Prayagraj.
…Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Chakrapani Vatsyayan.
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.
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial) Mr. Aman Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present OA has been filed challenging the order/notice dated 14.06.2024, whereby respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the applicant under Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, proposing to enhance the punishment imposed upon him vide order dated 02.02.2024, from reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect to that of compulsory retirement.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that, being aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 14.06.2024, the applicant approached this Tribunal and, vide order dated 22.07.2024, this Tribunal, as an interim measure, directed that the effect and operation of the impugned notice shall remain suspended till the next date of listing and, if the said notice had been given effect to, the same shall remain in abeyance till the next date of listing. He further submitted that the applicant had already undergone the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 02.02.2024, whereby his pay was reduced by three stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that, during the pendency of the OA, the applicant attained the normal age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.09.2026 from the post of PACO (LSG). He submitted that, in view of the applicant’s retirement on attaining the normal age of superannuation and completion of the period of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the proposed enhancement of punishment to compulsory retirement has lost its significance and the proceedings have become infructuous.
5. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, the OA has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the applicant’s DCRG and other retiral benefits, as admissible under the rules, expeditiously, subject to his entitlement.
7. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Manju Pandey)
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (A)
Member (J)
/Shakuntala/