Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
K. L. Manhas vs Union Of India & Others on 11 May, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI P.T. NO.108/2010 This the 11th day of May, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN K. L. Manhas Applicant ( In person ) Versus Union of India & Others Respondents ( By Shri Naresh Kumar, Sr. Adv with Shri Shant Kumar; Shri R. N. Singh, Shri Yash Pal Rangi, Shri M. K. Bhardwaj, Advocates ) O R D E R
K. L. Manhas, the applicant herein, has filed Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the transfer and posting order dated 4.2.2010 issued by the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, whereby he has been removed from the cadre post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, posting him against a junior non-cadre and temporary post of Managing Director, Haryana Forest Development Corporation, Panchkula. Shri Parvez Ahmed, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, and Shri V. K. Jhajhria, IFS, have been impleaded as party respondents 3 and 4 with allegations of mala fides. The said respondents are stated to be junior to the applicant and inimical to his career advancement. Some narration of events has been given in the Application, which, according to the applicant, would show how inimical, in particular the 4th respondent, is in the career advancement of the applicant. There would, however, be no need to give narration of such events.
2. The applicant has also filed an application under Section 25 of the Act of 1985 seeking retention of the Original Application in the Principal Bench at Delhi, as the jurisdiction to entertain and try the OA would otherwise be with Chandigarh Bench. In the application aforesaid, it is mentioned that OA No.1274/2010 has been filed by the applicant at the Principal Bench and the same is pending adjudication. There is no mention at all as to what is the relief that has been asked for in the said OA. Surely, the same is not connected with the present OA, as in para 7 thereof the applicant has clearly mentioned that he has not previously filed any application, writ or suit regarding the matter in respect of which present OA has been made before any court or any other authority or any other Bench of this Tribunal. The only ground seeking retention of the OA at the Principal Bench is that Smt. Promilla Issar, a retired IAS officer of Haryana cadre, has been appointed as Administrative Member in the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal, and that she was inimical towards the applicant when he served under her during the year 2000-2001, which would be made out from the orders passed by her in OA No.43/HR/08 on 9.3.2009, 26.5.2009 and 28.5.2009.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents 3 and 4 have entered appearance and filed their reply contesting the prayer of the applicant for retention of the OA in the Principal Bench at Delhi. Before we may deal with the reply filed on behalf of the said respondents, we may mention that the orders relied upon by the applicant in his endeavour to show that Smt. Promilla Issar, Honble Administrative Member, is inimical to him, are such where the Honble Member has mentioned that the OA of the applicant bearing no.43/HR/08 be listed before a Division Bench in which she may not be Member. There is nothing at all mentioned as to how she is inimical towards the applicant. In the reply filed on behalf of the 3rd and 4th respondents, it has been pleaded that the applicant has made unfounded allegations against the Honble Member just to harass the respondents by filing the OA at the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. It is pleaded that once, the impugned order has been passed by the Government of Haryana, and the private respondents and the applicant himself are residing and serving in Haryana, it would not be justified on the part of the applicant to seek permission for filing his Application before the Principal Bench at Delhi. Whereas the 3rd respondent is posted at Panchkula, the 4th respondent is posted at Hissar, and if the OA is permitted to be retained at Delhi, the said respondents would face undue harassment for no fault on their part. The issue raised in OA no.1274/2010 is stated not to be related to the issue involved in the present OA. The applicant is stated to have made serous allegations against the Honble Administrative Member without any justification. It is pleaded that there are two Division Benches at Chandigarh and the case of the applicant can be heard by the other Bench in which Mrs. Promilla Issar may not be Member. The Honble Member has herself passed an order for not hearing the case of the applicant, and in that context, if at all, the applicant may have any grouse, the same will not subsist. The applicant is stated to be a person with shady character, and that in one case he had molested a female clerk in his office while posted as Conservator of Forests, and further that he has been charge-sheeted many times because of his misconduct, irregularities and corrupt practices in government service. He is stated to have indulged in not less than two dozen court cases against the Government, and even against his official drivers and clerks. It is averred that he uses unparliamentary, abusive and provocative language in official letters even to senior officers, and that he himself is a man of offending and unpredictable character, raising finger on the integrity of the Honble Member, and in that manner, on the whole judicial system.
4. I have heard the applicant who appeared in person and learned counsel representing the respondents, and with their assistance examined the records of the case. The only ground seeking retention of the OA in the Principal Bench is totally devoid of merit. The applicant has given no reason, no instance, or even no factual background to show as to how the Honble Administrative Member of the Chandigarh Bench may be inimical to him. In absence of any event showing inimical attitude of the Honble Member towards the applicant, what can safely be concluded is that the Honble Member ordered listing of the OA of the applicant before another Bench because she might have dealt with his case at some point while holding a post with the Government of Haryana. Further, it is not only the inconvenience of the applicant alone, but of other parties as well, which would be of paramount consideration in transferring a case from one Bench to another, or retention in a Bench where there would be no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Still further, the applicant has not mentioned a word as to what his earlier OA is about. Surely, as mentioned above, the same has no connection with the present case. Whether the said OA could be filed in the Principal Bench, or it could be filed in the Chandigarh Bench, and on what grounds, has not been detailed. If the same was retained in the Principal Bench even though the jurisdiction may have been with the Chandigarh Bench, whether it was contested or not, and in the said OA, but for the Government, who are other respondents, has not been stated.
5. In the circumstances as mentioned above, the application deserves to be dismissed. Once, the concerned Honble Administrative Member has already recused herself from hearing the other OA of the applicant, surely, even this case would not be heard by her, and that being so, no case is made out for retaining the OA in the Principal Bench. The application is accordingly dismissed.
( V. K. Bali ) Chairman /as/