Chandigarh: Tribunal quashes provident fund organisation officer’s suspension

The tribunal held that the WhatsApp messages could not, by themselves, justify the suspension when they had not been mentioned in the original order

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, has quashed the suspension of an Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) officer, observing that the authorities cannot give new reasons to justify an order after it has been passed.

The tribunal noted that the suspension order only stated that disciplinary proceedings were being considered against Punit. (HT File)

The tribunal also set aside an order in which the officer’s request was rejected by the EPFO to continue working from Chandigarh instead of shifting his headquarters to Chennai/Puducherry during the suspension period.

The order was passed on Tuesday on a plea filed by Kumar Punit, a regional provident fund commissioner-I, challenging his suspension on July 27, 2026, and the subsequent decision to change his headquarters. Advocate Arvind Moudgil appeared for Punit.

The tribunal noted that the suspension order only stated that disciplinary proceedings were being considered against Punit. It did not mention the specific allegations against him or the material on which the decision was based.

The EPFO later cited messages allegedly posted by Punit in a WhatsApp group on July 22 to justify the suspension. The messages were shared after the central provident fund commissioner (CPFC) had cautioned officers against malpractices following the arrest of an enforcement officer.

According to the EPFO, Punit had shared news reports about GST officials and made remarks such as “This is just a tip of the ice berg” and “I am really aghast”. The organisation viewed these comments as an act of indiscipline and a challenge to the CPFC’s authority.

However, the tribunal said an order must be judged on the reasons recorded when it was issued. The authorities could not introduce fresh grounds later to defend their decision before the tribunal.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the tribunal held that the WhatsApp messages could not, by themselves, justify the suspension when they had not been mentioned in the original order.

The tribunal also questioned the decision to shift Punit’s headquarters to Chennai/Puducherry, around 2,500 km from Chandigarh. It noted that although the EPFO had the power to post employees anywhere in the country, it had not explained why the change was necessary in Punit’s case.

The authorities had also failed to explain how allowing him to remain in Chandigarh would affect the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the suspension order nor the order rejecting his representation cited any specific administrative reason or public interest for the move.

Punit had alleged that the action was motivated by personal vendetta and followed a legal notice he issued to an additional central provident fund commissioner. The EPFO maintained that its head office learnt about the notice only after the suspension order had been issued.

Allowing Punit’s plea, the tribunal quashed the suspension order dated July 27 and the August 15 order rejecting his representation. It also made its earlier interim order final and directed the EPFO to allow him to continue working at his last place of posting in Chandigarh, in accordance with law.