Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjiv Chaturvedi vs Union Of India & Others on 11 August, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI P.T. NO.161/2010 This the 11th day of August, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN Sanjiv Chaturvedi Applicant ( By Shri Ajesh Luthra, Advocate ) Versus Union of India & Others Respondents ( By Ms. Anubha Aggarwal, Advocate ) O R D E R
Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an officer of the Indian Forest Service, through Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1981 has challenged order dated 24.5.2010 appointing the enquiry officer, as also chargesheet dated 14.9.2007 on variety of grounds. By another application under Section 25 of the Act, the applicant prays that the Original application be retained in the Principal Bench, even though the jurisdiction to entertain and try the same would be of the Bench at Chandigarh. The two-fold grounds seeking retention of the Application at the Principal Bench are that the applicant is a resident of Hissar and that while Chaidigarh is more than 300 kms. from Hissar, Delhi is only 150 kms, and that one of the Honble Members of the Bench at Chandigarh has been the chairperson of the committee that reviewed suspension of the applicant, when the Honble Member was Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana. It is pleaded that the suspension of the applicant was extended by the said review committee, which was, however, ordered to be revoked by the Ministry of Forests immediately after its extension proposal, and that being so, the applicant may not get proper justice from the Bench at Chandigarh.
2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and contested the prayer of the applicant for retention of the original lis at the Principal Bench.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and examined the records. The applicant is an officer of the Indian Forest Service. He is not a low-paid employee who may face financial crunch in traveling just 150 kms. extra. There is no dearth of transportation from Hissar to Chandigarh. Further, if for little inconvenience, as in the present case, that may be caused to an employee, the cases are to be transferred to the Principal Bench, it may result into a difficult situation where the Principal Bench would be overburdened with work, while the Benches where the jurisdiction may lie, may be starving for work. Insofar as, the other plea of the applicant as noted above is concerned, suffice it may be to mention that it is very often seen that irrespective of a judge dealing with a matter on administrative side, when the same matter comes before him or her on judicial side, a different view is taken. When a person becomes a judge, he/she sheds all the tagging that he/she may have earlier. Be that as it may, it is up to the Honble Member not to deal with the case of the applicant, and it is often seen that though there may not be any legal bar, but Members who might have dealt with a case on administrative side would normally recuse themselves from the matter. The applicant must have faith in the system.
4. Finding no merit in this application, the same is dismissed.
( V. K. Bali ) Chairman /as/