Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs The Union Of India Through Secretary To ... on 8 May, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A No. 319/PB/2013 Date of decision-08.05.2014.
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
D.S. Meena S/o Late Sh. K.L. Meena, presently working as Assistant Director (Coordination) at National Institute of Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Research, MotiBagh Road, Patiala.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. M.K.Bhandari.
VERSUS
1. The Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, B. Block, AYUSH Bhawan, GPO Complex, I.N.A. New Delhi.
2. The Director General Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences, J.L.N.D.C.A.H.A.B. No. 61-65, Institutional Area, Opposite D-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi.
3. The Research Officer Incharge , NIAPR, MotiBhagh Road, Patiala.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Deepak Agnihotri, counsel for respondent no. 1.
Sh. Suresh Verma, counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3.
ORDER (ORAL)
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
1. By means of the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals, Act 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief:-
a) An appropriate order or direction may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to post the applicant at Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences, New Delhi.
b) A direction may be issued to the respondent to take decision on the representations Annexure A-22 (colly) within a stipulated time.
c) any other appropriate order may be issued, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. In support thereof, Sh. M.K. Bhandari, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as an inquiry was proposed to be conducted with regard to the revoking of the suspension of the applicant, therefore, initially vide order dated 13.09.2007, the applicant working as Assistant Director ( Coordinator), was transferred from Delhi HQ to Mumbai but later on, it was pointed out by the applicant that there was no post of Assistant Director at Mumbai and then on his request, he was ordered to be transferred from Mumbai to Patiala. Thereafter, he again requested for transfer from Patiala to Delhi but the same was rejected on the ground that departmental proceeding is pending against him. He further submitted that since now the departmental proceeding against him have been concluded and punishment of stoppage of one increment (temporarily) has now been imposed upon him vide order dated 11.01.2013, therefore his request to transfer him to Delhi, has to be re-considered. Thereafter, he also made representations to the authorities to transfer him back to Delhi Headquarter against the cadre strength as the proceedings against him have been finalized but to no avail. He also submitted that the applicant was recruited against the post of Assistant Director (Co-ordinator) and has not been posted on a cadre post. Therefore, lastly, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that as the impugned basis of his transfer from Delhi to else where, has now lost its relevance, therefore, let the authorities reconsider his case and decide the pending representation to transfer him to Delhi, in accordance with law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant also drew our attention to the annexures, Annexure A-5 (dated 13.09.2007, Annexure A-8 ( dated 24.04.008) and Annexure A-16 ( dated 03.05.2012), indicating that the applicant was moved from Delhi to Mumbai, then Mumbai to Patiala only on the basis of departmental inquiry pending against him, which is also affirmed by respondent no. 1 in the written statement.
3. Per contra, Sh. Deepak Agnihotri, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that they have taken their stand in para 1 of the written statement under Preliminary Submission that the applicant against whom Departmental Disciplinary proceedings were initiated for act of serious omission and commission was transferred by the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) along with post from CCRAS Headquarters, New Delhi and posted to Central Research Institute (Ay.) Patiala, so that he could not prejudice the inquiry proceedings or tamper the records.
4. Sh. Suresh Verma, counsel for contesting respondents no. 2 & 3 submitted that being autonomous body, the employer can post its employees to any where as per the requirement of the service.
5. Considering the above, as it is admitted by the respondents that the departmental proceeding against the applicant has now been concluded on the basis of which he was transferred out from the Delhi, therefore, we direct the competent authority amongst the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant and decide his representation dated 19.01.2013 (Annexure A-22-colly) by passing a speaking order, supported with reasons as per law and rules within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Orders so passed be duly communicated to the applicant.
6. With the observations and directions as above, this O.A. stands disposed of, with no orders as to costs.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 08.05.2014
`jk
??
??
??
??
1
O.A No. 319/PB/2013
(D.S.Meena Vs. UOI & Ors.)