Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Sunil Kumar Choudhary on 6 August, 2015
Bench: Rajendra Menon, Sushil Kumar Gupta
..1..
W.P. No. 5885/2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION No.5885/2015
Union of India and others
Vs.
Sunil Kumar Choudhary
Present:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil Kumar Gupta
Shri Narinderpal Singh Ruprah, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Meghnath Bannerjee, learned counsel for the
respondent.
ORDER
(06/08/2015) Calling in question tenability an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 30.03.2015 vide annexure P/1 rejecting a prayer made by the petitioner-Railway Administration for dismissing an application pending before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act having been rendered infructuous and abated, this writ petition has been filed.
2. Facts in brief goes to show that respondent was engaged as a substitute Bungalow peon by the Railway Administration and according to the Railway Administration, he was granted a temporary status on ..2..
W.P. No. 5885/201510.03.2014. His performance according to the Railway Administration was not satisfactory and as he was only a temporary employee, a show-cause notice was issued to him asking him to show-cause as to why his services should not be terminated for the reasons indicated therein. Challenging the show-cause notice so issued, the respondent- employee filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur under Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1985").
3. The Tribunal took cognizance of the application and on 06.02.2015 after hearing, directed for issuing notice to the respondents as per rule. Accordingly, a notice as per rule was issued against the respondents vide annexure P/6, i.e., form No.8 rule 29 and in the said notice, it was indicated that an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, copy annexed thereto has been filed and upon preliminary hearing, the Tribunal has directed that the Railway Administration should show-cause as to why the application should not be admitted. Thereafter proceeding went on from time to time, there was no specific order admitting the application and in the meanwhile as the service of the respondent-employee was terminated, an application was filed by the Railway Administration to say that the proceedings initiated against the show-cause notice has been rendered infructuous due to the subsequent order of termination of the employee concerned and, therefore the application should be dismissed as having been abated as per Section 19(4).
4. The respondent-employee invited attention of the Tribunal to the provisions of sub-Section 4 of Section 19 and argued that as the application filed by him has been admitted by the Tribunal, the subsequent proceedings being something connected with the dispute which was already pending could be adjudicated in the pending proceedings itself and the application has not been rendered ..3..
W.P. No. 5885/2015infructuous or abated. The Tribunal having accepted the aforesaid objections on the respondent-employee and as the Tribunal is now proceeding in the matter on the ground that in view of the sub-section 4 of Section 19, the original application filed under Section 19 has not been abated, this writ petition has been filed by the Railway Administration.
5. Even though various multifarious contentions were advanced at the time of hearing, one of the grounds raised by Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners, was that the provisions of sub- Section 4 of Section 19 get attracted only if the application filed under Section 19 is admitted in accordance with the procedure contemplated under sub-Section 3 of Section 19. It was emphasized by him that in this case as only a notice to show-cause against admission was issued and as there were no orders on admission, provisions of Section 19(4) will not be attracted and by keeping the matter pending by virtue of the said provision, it is argued that the Tribunal has committed an error of law which warrants reconsideration in these proceedings under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
6. Shri Ruprah invites our attentions to the various order sheets filed, the show-cause notice issued vide annexure P/6 and submitted that as the show-cause notice itself was issued for the purpose of admission, the Tribunal's finding that the application is deemed to have been admitted after notice was issued even though there is no specific order of admission is a perverse and incorrect finding and on the basis of same, the Tribunal could not have held that provision of Section 19(4) gets attracted.
7. Shri Meghnath Bannerjee refuted the aforesaid and argued that as a matter of practice the Tribunal in most of the cases only issues notice and as the notice in this case was issued in the presence of ..4..
W.P. No. 5885/2015standing counsel for the respondent who was present in the Court 06.02.2015, the application is deemed to have been admitted and the Tribunal has not committed any error in so holding. He further clarifies that the show-cause notice annexure P/6 indicating as to why the application should not be admitted is only a ministerial work issued in a printed proforma. After the show-cause notice was issued, as the matter was heard by the Tribunal on various dates after 06.02.2015, the application is deemed to have been admitted and the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the provisions of sub-Section 4 of Section 19 gets attracted.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and we have also taken note of the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1985.
9. Sub-Section 1 of Section 19 provides for an aggrieved person to file an application before the Tribunal for redressal of his grievances with regard to any order which may be passed by the competent authority. Thereafter, sub-Section 2 contemplates a provision, as to in what manner the application under sub-Section 1 has to be filed, what are the documents and other ingredients necessary to be filed alongwith such an application. Sub-Section 3 of Section 19 which is important as far as the present controversy is concerned, reads as under:-
"(3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Tribunal shall, if satisfied after such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that the application is a fit case for adjudication or trial by it, admit such application; but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may summarily reject the application after recording its reasons."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Thereafter sub-Section 4 contemplates that when an application is admitted by the Tribunal under sub-Section 3, every proceeding under the relevant service rule as to redressal of grievance in relation ..5..
W.P. No. 5885/2015to the subject matter of such application pending immediately before such admission shall abate. Meaning thereby, that if the application has not been admitted then any application which is pending consideration with regard to any relevant service dispute or grievance in relation to the subject matter shall abate.
11. Admittedly, in this case because of the subsequent development of termination, which is a grievance in relation to the subject matter of the application if the application was not admitted, the proceedings would abate and if the application was admitted then the proceedings would not abate and, therefore, we are required to examine as to whether in the facts and circumstance of the case, it can be said that the Tribunal admitted the application filed under Section 19(1) or whether it only issued show-cause notice prior to admission.
12. In the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, after taking note of the facts as are narrated hereinabove, the Tribunal holds that on 06.02.2015, notices were issued to the respondent after hearing both sides and, therefore, the original application was deemed to be admitted even though it was not specifically so mentioned or ordered.
13. Admittedly, the entire order sheets available on record indicates that there was no specific order admitting the application for final hearing. The only order is for issuing notice to the respondents as per rule and the notice issued to the respondents as per rule i.e., annexure P/6 is a notice wherein it is indicated to the petitioner-Railway Administration that they are granted an opportunity to show-cause as to why the application should not be admitted. It is in the backdrop of these facts that we are required to take a decision as to whether the finding of the Tribunal that the application is deemed to have been admitted on 06.02.2015 is a correct finding or not.
..6..
W.P. No. 5885/201514. We, at this stage, may refer to the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 19 which has been reproduced by us herein above. On a perusal of the detailed procedure laid down therein, we find that a three stage process or three alternate options are available to the Tribunal after an application is filed under Section 19(1). Once an application is filed under sub-Section 1 of Section 19, the Tribunal, after such enquiry as it may deem necessary, satisfied that it is a fit case for adjudication or trial, the Tribunal may admit such application. Accordingly, when an application is filed, the Tribunal may, admit the application if it is satisfied that it is fit for adjudication/trial or else conduct an enquiry to find out whether it is a fit case for adjudication or trial and thereafter admit the matter, these are the first two options.
15. If the Tribunal chooses to do none of these then the third option available to the Tribunal is to reject the application summarily by recording reasons.
16. Accordingly, on a close scrutiny of the provisions of sub-Section 3, we are satisfied that the Tribunal, as per the statutory provision has to pass a specific order admitting the application and before admitting the application, an option is given to the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry to satisfy itself as to whether the case is fit for adjudication or trial. If the procedure followed by the Tribunal in this case is read alongwith with the statutory notice issued as per rules, it is clear that the Tribunal directed for issuing notice and did not record any order admitting the application and in the notice served on Railway Administration they were directed to show-cause as to why the application should not be admitted. From the material available on record, i.e., the order sheet dated 06.02.2015 and the notice issued shows that what the Tribunal did on 06.02.2015 was to initiate the process for enquiry to find out as the whether it was a fit case for adjudication of trial and did not pass any order on admission. Having not passed any specific order for ..7..
W.P. No. 5885/2015admission and when only notice to show-cause was issued, under law, it is clear that the Tribunal was in the process of conducting an enquiry to find out as to whether it was a fit case for adjudication or trial, before actually admitting the application.
17. That being the position, we find that the Tribunal, in the present case having held that the application is deemed to have been admitted on 06.02.2015, has committed an error, which cannot be upheld by us. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the procedure provided in Section 19(3) and the legislative intent in providing a three stage procedure to be followed by the Tribunal as detailed hereinabove in sub-section 3 or Section 19, it is a case where the application was not admitted, only a show-cause notice for admission was issued and, therefore, the provisions of Section 4 may get attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in dismissing the application of the respondents by holding that the application has been admitted, the Tribunal has committed an error, to that extent, we deem it appropriate to interfere into the matter.
18. We hold that the application having not been admitted, now considering the application not to have been admitted, the tribunal should pass an appropriate order on the objections raised by the respondent, after hearing all concerned.
19. With the aforesaid, the impugned order stands quashed and the matter stands remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration.
(Rajendra Menon) (Sushil Kumar Gupta)
Judge Judge
GT