EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY vs SATISH KUMAR on 11 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA Order Sheet Item no.: 37 M.A./578/2026 (PATNA) [ EXTENSION OF TIME ] In O.A./485/2023 DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE C.P./88/2026 Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 1 Order Dated: 11/11/2026 EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY Vs SATISH KUMAR

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. T.N. Thakur, ld. Sr. CGSC

For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. M.P. Dixit Order of The Tribunal Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants of M.A. No. 578/2026 (counsel for respondents in the O.A.) has prayed for extension of time by a period of two months for completion of the fresh departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the respondent (counsel for applicant in the OA) who has filed a reply to this M.A. has taken objection to this prayer by stating that the charge memo has been sent to the applicant of the O.A. by registered post. This is beyond comprehension of the Tribunal that when the applicant has already been reinstated in service and is presumed to be in service of the respondent officials albeit now under suspension as apprised by the counsel for the respondent (counsel for applicant in the O.A.), then why was there a necessity of sending the charge memo by registered post? Even if the prayer for grant of two months is considered, then there is no undertaking by the respondents (counsel for applicants of this M.A.), that this proceeding will be concluded within that period of two months when they have already taken six months for service of charge memo and filed this M.A. for extension of time on 06.10.2026, that is beyond the period of six months of the period of order of this O.A. dated 06.04.2026. It was clearly observed in the order passed in that O.A. that departmental proceedings should be conducted strictly adhering to the Rules 1968, which empowered the respondent officials to proceed ex-parte in case the charged officials did not cooperate in the conduction of this departmental proceeding. So, in view of the fact that there is no undertaking delineating a fixed time frame for conclusion of this departmental proceeding, the Tribunal is constrained to believe that there is no valid ground to grant any extension of time and the counsel for the applicant of this M.A. is himself saying that despite efforts of the respondent officials refused to take notices. This further goes on to prove that this extension of time is going to serve no purpose and the respondent officials are not going ahead as per the prescribed rules which give them statutory power to proceed ex-parte against any such charged official. Accordingly, this M.A. for extension of time is dismissed. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA Member (A) Justice Narendra Kumar Johari Member (J) Pooja Kumari ( court master )