Pallab Kumar Sarkar v. Union Of India And ANR

$~129 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 5809/2026 & CM APPLs. 28610-28611/2026 PALLAB KUMAR SARKAR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr.

Niraj Kumar Jha and Mr.

Madhuresh Kumar Mishra, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 29.04.2026 1.

This writ petition seeks the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Order dated 09.02.2023 imposing compulsory retirement on the Petitioner; b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to his withheld post (Assiatant Director, w.e.f October 2021) with full back wages, seniority and all consequential benefits; c) Issue direction to the respondents to pay special compensation of Rs.5 Crores for the mental torture, irrevocable loss of reputation, causing detrimental health (especially to the eyes) caused due to immense depression leading to self-annihilatory tendencies. Also to pay litigation expenses which would be incurred by compensate the petitioner for the damages caused due to the arbitrary and illegal orders".

2.

The Petitioner is an employee of the Intelligence Bureau, which functions under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, and is thus a Central Government employee. The impugned action arises out of disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In terms of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:24:49

1985, service matters concerning such employees fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.1, disputes of this nature are required to be agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the first instance, and the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not ordinarily invoked at the threshold.

3.

In view of the above, counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in accordance with law. 4.

Leave and liberty, as prayed for, are granted. 5.

The writ petition, along with pending application(s), stands dismissed as withdrawn.

SANJEEV NARULA, J APRIL 29, 2026/hc 1 (1997) 3 SCC 261.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:24:49