W.P.(C) 1652/2019 $~108 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010111972019 + W.P.(C) 1652/2019 & CM APPL. 7575/2019, CM APPL. 4404/2022 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. Kushagra Malik, Advs. versus DR. SWETABH SUMAN .....Respondent Through: Adv. (Appearance not given) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 13.08.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. On 11 August 2026, we had passed the following order: “1. Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the main grievance of the petitioners in this petition, directed against the order dated 23 October 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 3524/2018 is with respect to the direction, in the concluding paragraph of the order to the effect that, requiring the petitioners to examine the case of the respondent in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India2 and further directing that if no charge sheet in the criminal case and charge memo in the departmental proceedings have been filed within 90 days of initial suspension, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar 1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter 2 (2015) 7 SCC 291 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:17.08.2026 15:16:43 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1652/2019 Choudhary would be required to be followed. 2. She submits that, in so directing, the Tribunal has failed to notice subsequent judgment of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Dr. Rishi Anand3 which has interpreted the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary especially keeping in mind the concluding paragraph of the said decision. 3. She submits, therefore, that the petitioners would be satisfied if the direction issued by the Tribunal is modified by permitting the petitioners to take into account judgments which have later noticed Ajay Kumar Choudhary as passed by this Court. 4. There is, however, no appearance on behalf of the respondent. 5. Re-notify on 13 August 2026 as part heard for disposal in the Supplementary List. 6. The Registry as well as Court Master is directed to inform telephonically to the learned Counsel for the respondent of the next date of hearing.” 2. Today, it is informed that the counsel who has to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent is on her legs in another court and that it has not been possible to contact the respondent. 3. This is a writ petition of 2019 and we are not inclined to keep it pending. In any event, the only relief that is sought by Ms. Srivastava is that the Tribunal should also take into consideration later decisions of this Court which have considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, including Dr. Rishi Anand. 4. It is true that there has been development of law after the rendition of the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary, which the Tribunal has not had occasion to consider. 3 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10506 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:17.08.2026 15:16:43 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 1652/2019 5. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment dated 23 October 2018 of the learned Tribunal and remand OA 3524/2018 to the learned Tribunal for consideration afresh, also factoring in the development of law after the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary. 6. Learned Counsel for the parties would present themselves before the Tribunal on 1 September 2026. 7. Neither side would be entitled to seek adjournment on the said date. 8. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute between the parties. All issues of facts and law shall remain open for contest before the Tribunal. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. C.HARI SHANKAR, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J. AUGUST 13, 2026 dsn Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:17.08.2026 15:16:43