Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Roopak Saharia S/O Shri R K Saharia vs Union Of India Through on 6 July, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.535 of 2011 M.A.Nos.541, 542 & 1013 of 2011 Wednesday, this the 6th day of July 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Roopak Saharia s/o Shri R K Saharia Parcel Porter, Jhansi, NCR, Jhansi ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma) Versus Union of India through 1. The General Manager AICR, Allahabad GM Office, NCR, Allahabad, UP 2. Assistant Commercial Manager (Disciplinary Authority), NCR, Jhansi 3. Shri M K Shukla I I Vigilance, Railway Board Rail Bhawan, New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocates: Shri VSR Krishna and Shri Shailendra Tiwary) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri M L Chauhan:
The OA has been filed by the applicant against the charge memo dated 10.1.2011 issued by the Assistant Commercial Manager, Jhansi respondent No.2. The basis for issuing such charge memo is the alleged report submitted by I.I. Vigilance, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi, as such the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Principal Bench of this Tribunal has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
2. We have given due consideration to the arguments made by the parties and we are of the view that simply because respondent No.3 is alleged to have submitted a report, which forms the basis for issuing the charge memo, this Principal Bench does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
3. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant submits that he may be permitted to take appropriate steps either to file transfer petition before the Honble Chairman or to file substantive OA before the competent Bench having territorial jurisdiction. The contention raised by the learned counsel for applicant is accepted and he may resort to any of the two remedies, as stated above. Learned counsel for applicant has further stated that since the stay is operating against the respondents, he may be protected at least for further two weeks.
4. In view of what has been stated above, the present OA is disposed of in the aforestated terms. It is, however, made clear that the interim order granted on 17.2.2011 and extended from time to time shall remain operative for a further period of two weeks from today. In view of disposal of this OA, no order is required to be passed in the aforementioned M.A. Nos.541, 542 and 1013 of 2011, which shall stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
( Shailendra Pandey ) ( M L Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/