Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Union Of India vs Dr.P.Makhija S/O Late Shri Sunder Das ... on 31 May, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
RA No.333/2012
OA No. 3097/2012
Tuesday, this the 31st day of May, 2013
Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman
Honble Dr.Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A)
Union of India, represented through its Secretary,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy,
Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH), I,
Red Cross Road, New Delhi-110001.
Bangalore-10. Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri M.K.Bhardwaj/respondent no.1 in OA
Ms.Neha Bhatnagar, respondent no.2 in OA)
Versus
Dr.P.Makhija S/o late Shri Sunder Das Makhija
R/o DDA Multi-story Building, Flat No.328,
Sector 19 B, Dwarka, New Delhi. Respondent.
(By Advocate: Shri Awnish Kumar for Shri S.K.Pandey)
ORDER (Oral)
By Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam By means of this application, the applicant is seeking review of the order dated 18.09.2012 in OA 3097/2012 moved on behalf of Respondent No.1, Union of India on the ground implies that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings pertaining to the Group A officers, the disciplinary authority is the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha (CCRAS), who has appeared as Respondent No.2 in the OA.
2. Shri M.K.Bhardwaj learned counsel appearing on behalf of review applicant/Respondent No.1 in OA has submitted that the order dated 18.09.2012 was disposed of and a direction has been issued to Respondent No.1 to take final decision on the report submitted by the inquiry officer. He submits that since the disciplinary authority in the matter is respondent no.2 and therefore respondent no.1 has no jurisdiction to take final decision on the report submitted in the departmental proceedings. In support of his contention, he draws our attention to Annexure A-1 to the Review Application and points out that for major penalty of Group A (i) employee is the Governing Body. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that since the matter is pending since long, therefore, whosoever may be the disciplinary authority, final decision is to be taken on the report submitted by the inquiry officer at the earliest. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of CCRAS submits that reply has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 in OA and she does not dispute that the respondent no.2 is not the disciplinary authority of the applicant.
3. In view of the aforesaid position that the respondent no.2 in the OA is the disciplinary authority of the applicant, we modify/review the order dated 18.09.2012 passed in OA 3097/2012 to the extent that the final decision in the report submitted by inquiry officer shall be taken by the respondent no.2 i.e. CCRAS within a period of six weeks from today.
4. With the above order, the Review Application stands disposed of.
(Dr.Birendra Kumar Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam)
Member (A) Chairman
/kdr/