Allahabad High Court
Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs Union Of India Throu.Chairman ... on 2 September, 2019
Bench: Anil Kumar, Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 3 Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 22679 of 2019 Petitioner :- Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj Respondent :- Union Of India Throu.Chairman C.B.D.T.New Delhi And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Capt.P.K.Bajaj[Inperson] Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,Neerav Chitravanshi Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, petitioner (in person) and Sri Aman Mali, Advocate assisted by Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondents.
Facts in brief of the present case are that Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, petitioner (in person), aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 01.07.2019, had filed Original Application No.357 of 2019 in which an order dated 15.07.2019 was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"). The relevant portion of the same reads as under :-
"Admittedly, the applicant has been placed under suspension vide order dated 01.07.2019 and he, without, exhausting the departmental remedy available to him under Rule-23 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, rushed to this Tribunal by filing the instatn O.A. Rule-23 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 clearly stipulates that against the order of suspension under Rule-10, an appeal lies before the appellate authority, which the applicant has not availed. Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 also clearly provides that a Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances. Since, there is a specific Rule namely Rule 23 in the CCS (CCA) Rules for filing an appeal against the suspension order passed under Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules, we are of the considered view that this O.A. be disposed of at this stage without calling any counter reply to the respondents, to direct the applicant to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of 7 days from today. Given the fact that the applicant is due to retire soon, hence in the interest of justice, the appellate authority, on receipt of the appeal of the applicant, shall consider and decide it in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter by passing a reasoned and speaking order under limitation to the applicant."
The order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal has been challenged by filing the present writ petition.
On 22.08.2019, this Court had passed an order. The relevant portion of the same is quoted herein below :-
"After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the position which emerged out is that the petitioner has already filed an appeal in pursuance to the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal and the same was to be decided within time frame as fixed by the Tribunal i.e. four weeks from the filing of the appeal. However, the same has not been decided by the Appellate Authority till date, so keeping in view of the said facts as well as the facts submitted by the petitioner that he is to retire from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2020, we feel appropriate that at this stage looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the interest of justice will sub-serve, if Appellate Authority is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal filed pursuant to the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal in accordance with law by the next date of listing.
Accordingly, Appellate Authority is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal filed pursuant to the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal in accordance with law by the next date of listing i.e. 02.09.2019 List/put up on 02.09.2019.
On the said date, respondent shall file an affidavit annexing the decision taken by the appellate authority, failing which, Appellant Authority shall appear in person before this Court on the said date to explain the reasons as to why the appeal has not been decided within time frame."
Today, the compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The same is taken on record.
In the said affidavit, it has been stated that the Appellate Authority in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 22.08.2019, has disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 29.08.2019. The copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure No.A-1 to the affidavit.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the appeal filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by the Appellate Authority by order dated 29.08.2019, so the present writ petition has become infructuous and if the petitioner has any grievance, he should approach the Tribunal by filing Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribuanl Act, 1985.
In rebuttal, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, petitioner (in person) submits that the order of suspension dated 01.07.2019 passed under Rule-10 (1) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against him is contrary to the facts on record and against the same, he had filed Original Application No.357 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.2019 with the direction that the petitioner has got a remedy of appeal against the said order under Rule 23 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In response to the same, he had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which has been decided on 29.08.2019 Petitioner (in person) further submitted that from the perusal of the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by Appellate Authority, it transpires that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the suspension order dated 01.07.2019 has not been decided on merit, rather on the point in issue the same is non speaking order as well as is in violation of principles of natural justice.
Further submitted that the order passed in appeal is unjust as in the order passed in appeal, a decision has been taken to continue the suspension of Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, petitioner (in person) for a period of 180 days beyond 28.09.2019 or till further orders, whichever is earlier and he would retire on 31.01.2010.
Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, petitioner (in person) has also submitted that the Appellate Authority under Rule 23 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has power to decide the appeal filed by him and the Appellate Authority has to take decision as to whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the suspension order dated 01.07.2019 passed under Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is in accordance with law or not. The action taken by the Appellate Authority by which the suspension of the petitioner has been extended for a period of 180 days is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, as such, petitioner (in person) is entitled for the relief claimed in the present writ petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261 and Rajeev Kumar and another vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 554, the petitioner has got a statutory remedy to file Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, so we cannot decide the matter on merit.
At this stage, petitioner (in person) requests that he may be permitted to file original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 along with an application for interim relief before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow within a period of one week and the Tribunal may be directed to decide the application for interim relief within time frame fixed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the above said prayer.
After hearing the petitioner (in person) as well as learned counsel for the respondent and taking into consideration the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and Rajeev Kumar (supra) as well as Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the petitioner (in person) is permitted to raise his grievances by filing original application along with prayer for interim relief before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and after receiving the same, the Tribunal shall make all endeavour to decide the application for interim relief of the petitioner (in person) within a period of three weeks on merit.
With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.
.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) (Anil Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 2.9.2019 Mahesh