Union Of India, Thr. Secy., Dept. Of Posts, Ministry Of Comm. And Info. Tech., New Delhi And ORS v. Pramod Ajabrao Shambharkar

2025:BHC-NAG:3225-DB 1 9.wp.3483.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3483/2021 Union of India and Ors.

Vs.

Pramod Ajabrao Shambharkar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms M. R. Chandurkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. P. S. Verma, Advocate for Respondent.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 27/03/2025.

.

Heard.

2.

In Original Application No.2148/2018, the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 07.05.2021, after quashing the impugned orders dated 28.08.2014, 27.11.2014, 09.10.2017 and 18.05.2018 directed remand of the matter with a further mandate to follow the procedure from the stage of conducting the fact finding inquiry.

3.

It is the claim of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry is already concluded and the report of the Inquiry Officer is submitted.

4.

In the aforesaid background, the only challenge left to be considered is to the order of costs. The order is based on the insensitive and lack of comprehension on the part of respondent No.3. In support thereof, we have perused the finding of para 23 of the impugned order. We hardly see any reason to justify the order of costs.

2 9.wp.3483.21 5.

That being so, the impugned order to the extent of costs is interfered with and direction to pay costs by the respondent No.3 is set aside.

6.

We are informed that the decision taken against the respondents is already under challenge in the independent proceedings.

7.

As such, the petition stands disposed of.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) RGurnule