Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Raj Narayan Jha vs Union Of India & Others on 25 January, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI P.T. No.317/2010 This the 25th day of January, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN Raj Narayan Jha Applicant ( By Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate ) Versus Union of India & Others Respondents ( By Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Advocate ) O R D E R
The applicant is a member of the Indian Forest Service, Uttarakhand Cadre. In the Original Application he seeks quashing of the chargesheet issued to him vide order dated 20.1.2010 by the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand, Forest & Environment Section-1, Dehradun. The charges leveled against him are stated to be pertaining to the action taken by him towards discharge of his official duties. He seeks setting aside of the chargesheet and the subsequent proceedings. Accompanying the OA is an application under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, wherein it is stated that in the State of Uttarakhand there is no regular Bench of the Tribunal and during winter session all the courts, including the circuit Bench of the Tribunal at Nainital, in the State remain closed for two months. It is also his case that it would be more convenient for him if his case is heard at the Principal Bench, as he is residing at Dehradun which is about 245 kms. from Delhi, whereas if he may file the OA at Allahabad Bench and not at Nainital Circuit Bench, the distance would be about 770 kms. It is further stated that offices of the respondents are located at Delhi and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the application for retention is allowed, as all the records pertaining to the case are available at Delhi.
2. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it is pleaded that consequent upon enforcement of UP Reorganization Act, 2000, the State of Uttarakhand was carved out from the erstwhile state of Uttar Pradesh, and pursuant there to vide notification dated 23.11.2000, the Allahabad Bench has been conferred jurisdiction to decide the disputes pertaining to the State of Uttarakhand. It is then pleaded that when the jurisdiction of the State of Uttarakhand rests with the Bench at Allahabad, the fact that courts in Uttarakhand remain closed during winters would be of no relevance.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, I am of the view that this application deserves to be allowed. After formation of the State of Uttarakhand, even though the jurisdiction may be with the Bench at Allahabad, but the cases pertaining to Uttarakhand are taken up by the Circuit Bench at Nainital, courts where remain closed in the winter session. The applicant, of course, could file the OA before the Allahabad Bench and seek its decision thereat, but that too would be inconvenient for the applicant as he is residing at Dehradun. Surely, convenience of the employee has to be given precedence over the convenience of the respondents. In this case, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondents as their offices are located in Delhi and records of the case are also available at Delhi.
4. For the reasons mentioned above, this application for retention is allowed.
( V. K. Bali ) Chairman /as/