Hyderabad: The Union Government has approached the Telangana High Court challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that set aside a penalty imposed on senior IPS officer Abhilasha Bisht (1994 batch, Telangana cadre) in connection with her extended deputation to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) without formal approval.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Yara Renuka heard the Centre’s petition on Friday. Additional Solicitor General B. Narasimha Sharma appeared on behalf of the Union Government.
The dispute centres on Bisht’s continued service at UNICEF in New Delhi after her approved deputation tenure ended. While the Centre maintains that she remained there without the required authorisation, the officer had argued that she sought an extension in time but that her request was not forwarded for formal consideration.
Following a departmental inquiry and consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the authorities imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage for two years, without cumulative effect. The CAT’s Hyderabad Bench subsequently set aside the penalty in an order dated April 29, 2026.
The Centre has now asked the High Court to quash the tribunal’s decision, describing it as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the service records and applicable service conditions. The High Court has adjourned the matter to November 23.
What Is the IPS Abhilasha Bisht Case About?
The case concerns Abhilasha Bisht’s deputation history and her continuation at UNICEF beyond the period approved by the competent authorities.
Before her UNICEF assignment, Bisht was on inter-cadre deputation from Telangana to Uttarakhand between 2005 and 2010. She was subsequently selected to work as a special officer at UNICEF in New Delhi for an initial period of two years.
Her deputation was permitted to continue until 2012. However, she remained at UNICEF until 2015, allegedly without formal approval for an extension.
The Union Government contends that she was required to return to her parent cadre after the approved tenure expired in 2012. According to the Centre, her continued stay at the international organisation without the necessary authorisation violated the applicable service rules.
The dispute subsequently led to disciplinary proceedings against the officer, culminating in the penalty that she challenged before the CAT.
Read also: Who Is Abhilasha Bisht? Telangana IPS Officer Gets HC Relief in Cadre Reallocation Case
Abhilasha Bisht Had Sought Extension in March 2012
An important aspect of the proceedings concerns the officer’s claim that she had applied for an extension before the approved deputation period ended.
During the High Court hearing, the Centre’s counsel acknowledged that Bisht had submitted a representation in March 2012 seeking an extension of her deputation.
She had also reportedly sent an email to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regarding the matter.
According to the submissions, however, the request was not forwarded by the Director General of Police to the state government and the Ministry of Home Affairs for formal consideration.
This aspect forms part of the dispute over how the extension request was handled and whether the officer’s continued stay at UNICEF was properly authorised.
The existence of an extension request, however, does not by itself establish that the extension was formally approved. The central issue before the court is the legality of the tribunal’s decision setting aside the disciplinary penalty.
Departmental Inquiry Led to Two-Year Penalty
After Bisht continued working at UNICEF beyond the approved deputation period, a charge memorandum was issued to her in 2018.
A departmental inquiry followed. After the inquiry and consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, the authorities imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage for two years, without cumulative effect.
Such a penalty affects an officer’s pay progression for the specified period, subject to the terms of the disciplinary order. The qualification that it was imposed without cumulative effect means the reduction was not intended to carry forward as a permanent reduction in the officer’s pay progression after the penalty period, in accordance with the applicable service rules.
Bisht challenged the disciplinary action before the Central Administrative Tribunal’s Hyderabad Bench, disputing the penalty imposed on her.
The tribunal ruled in her favour and set aside the penalty through its order dated April 29, 2026, in O.A. No. 185 of 2021.
The Union Government has now challenged that order before the Telangana High Court.
Why Has the Centre Challenged the CAT Order?
The Centre has sought to have the tribunal’s order quashed, arguing that the decision was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the service records and applicable service conditions.
Its case is based on the contention that the officer’s approved deputation period ended in 2012 and that her continued service at UNICEF until 2015 was not supported by the required formal approval.
The government is therefore contesting the CAT’s decision to set aside the penalty arising from the alleged overstay.
The officer’s position, as reflected in the submissions concerning her extension request, raises questions about the processing of her representation and the circumstances in which she continued at UNICEF.
The High Court will consider the Centre’s challenge and the relevant service records before deciding whether the tribunal’s order should stand.
At this stage, the High Court has not delivered a final ruling on the merits of the dispute.
Telangana High Court Adjourns Matter to November 23
The Division Bench heard the Centre’s petition on Friday, with Additional Solicitor General B. Narasimha Sharma representing the Union Government.
Counsel appearing for Abhilasha Bisht accepted notice on her behalf. The Centre also submitted that certain other respondents were not necessary parties to the proceedings.
The bench adjourned the matter to November 23 to allow the parties to prepare their submissions and place the relevant chronology of events before the court.
The next hearing is expected to provide an opportunity for the parties to address the circumstances surrounding the extension request, the officer’s continued stay at UNICEF and the disciplinary proceedings that followed.
The High Court will then consider the Centre’s challenge to the CAT’s April 29, 2026, order.
Until the court rules on the matter, the legal challenge remains pending.
Read also: Who Is Bihar IPS Officer Aditya Kumar? Departmental Proceedings Closed, DIG Promotion in Focus
