Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Ajay Kumar vs Postal on 14 February, 2020
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
RA/050/00003/2020
[ Arising out of OA/050/00837/2016]
Date of Order: 14.02.2020
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Ajay Kumar, ....... Applicant.
- By Advocate : Shri J.K. Karn
- Versus -
Union of India & Ors., ........ Respondents.
- By Advocate:- Shri H.P. Singh, Sr. SC
-
ORDER
[In Circulation] Per Dinesh Sharma, A.M.:- The instant Review Application has been filed seeking review of our order dated 09.12.2019 passed in OA/050/00837/2016 by which the OA was dismissed. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-
"6. As is clear from the language of paragraph 1 of Section 123 a person shall be deemed to be subject to the Army Act even if he has ceased to be so subject in relation to delinquencies committed during the Army Service. From the above, it is clear that the applicant cannot escape his liability for disciplinary action under the Army Act just because he was ordered to be discharged. It goes without saying that after disciplinary action is over and he is repatriated he will come under the purview of the parent department who will be bound to accept him on such repatriation, as decided by this Tribunal in -2- OA/050/00795/2015. In the aforementioned circumstances, though we have sympathy for the applicant for the prolongation of the disciplinary proceeding against him, we cannot grant him any relief for want of jurisdiction. Needless to say, the applicant is free to approach appropriate legal forum (in this case the Armed Forces Tribunal) to get his grievance redressed. The OA and MA are dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs."
2. Gone through the RA. The review is prayed on ground that the rejection of OA on ground of jurisdiction is against a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Major M.R. Penghal Vs. UOI & Ors. The applicant has enclosed a copy of this judgment.
3. There is no averment in the RA that this judgment was cited during the pendency and hearing of the OA at any stage. Hence, this is not a sufficient ground for review of a judgment.
4. However, on going through the copy of the judgment produced, it is clear that even if it was produced during the hearing of the OA, it would not have materially affected the order under review. The case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court related to actions related to lien with the Postal Service, the correctness or otherwise of his repatriation from the Military Service and not to the actions of the person while under deputation in the Army Service. The decision under review clearly mentions that he would come under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal once he is repatriated and joins the Postal Service. The action for delinquent acts done during Army Service under the Army Act, cannot come under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. -3-
5. Since there is no error apparent on the face of record or mistake of fact in the order, and since this review application amounts to request for re-adjudication, it is beyond the scope of review. The RA is, therefore, dismissed on circulation.
[Dinesh Sharma] Administrative Member Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judl. Member