Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Arvind Kumar Srivastava vs The Union Of India on 13 February, 2012
Open Court CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ********* Original Application No. 191 of 2012 Allahabad this the _13th day of February, 2012 Honble Mr. Justice S.C. Sharma, Sr. J.M./HOD Honble Mr. D.C. Lakha, Member-A Arvind Kumar Srivastava, S/o Harendra Prasad Srivastava, Before Removal posted as GDS Sub-post Master, Bajardiha, Varanasi, West Division Varanasi Cantt., District Varanasi. Permanent R/o No. 12/456, Bajardiha, Police Station Bhelupur, Varanasi, District- Varanasi. Applicant By Advocate: Mr. Vijay Gautam Vs. 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Postal Department, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Postmaster General (CPMG), U.P. Circle, Lucknow District, Lucknow. 3. The Post Master General (PMG), Allahabad District, Allahabad. 4. The Director, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, District Allahabad. 5. The Superintendent of Post Office, West Division, Varanasi, District Varanasi. Respondents By Advocate: O R D E R
Under challenge in the O.A. is the order of removal from service dated 15.10.2010 (annexure-1), and further prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant on the post of GDS Sub Post Master, treating the applicant continuous in service with all consequential benefits, and pay salary along with arrears of salary from the date of dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
2. From perusal of contents of the O.A., it is evident that there was serious allegation against the applicant of misappropriation of Government money. A criminal case was registered against the applicant before the appropriate criminal court and the respondents initiated parallel departmental proceeding against the applicant and the departmental proceedings were concluded by the respondents, and the punishment order of removal was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. But the appeal has not been preferred by the applicant before the Appellate Authority in order to challenge the order of removal, passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant in this context stated that as a criminal case was pending against the applicant, hence the respondents were not empowered to proceed with the departmental inquiry, and the respondents were unjustified in initiating departmental proceeding when the criminal case was pending, and they wrongly passed the punishment order. Accordingly, applicant is not accepting justice from the respondents. We would not like to comment upon the merits of the case because the applicant has approached this Tribunal without availing the alternative remedy available to the applicant in law. It has been provided in Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 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. Learned counsel argued that in Section 20 of the Act it has been mentioned that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application but there is extra ordinary circumstances in the present case to bypass the alternative remedy by filing the Appeal but, we are of the opinion, considering the facts of the case, that there was no extra ordinary circumstances in the present case to bypass the alternative remedy by filing the Appeal. The applicant is not justified to approach this Tribunal without availing the alternative remedy available to him. O.A. is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
4. O.A. is dismissed as premature. No cost.
Member-A Sr. J.M./HOD /M.M/