Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Rampati vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 August, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No.2550/2014 Order Reserved on: 31.07.2014 Order pronounced on 05.08.2014 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Smt. Rampati Age about 62 years W/o Late Sh. Prithvi Singh Ex.Sepoy No.3158893 Sep, Indian Army H.No.CN-28, Village Ambrahi New Delhi. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Arvind K. Vashistha) Versus Union of India & Ors. Through Mr. Rakesh Kalra Regional Executive Director Airports Authority of India Operational Offices Complex Rangpuri New Delhi 110 037. Mr. Alik Sinha Chaiman (sic. Chairman) Airports Authority of India C/2, Karbala Lane Jorbagh New Delhi 110 003. Ms. Upma Shrivastava Chief Vigilance Officer Airports Authority of India Room No.269, C-Wing Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003. Mr. V. Ravi Verma GM, Finance-Northern Region Regional Headquarters (NR) Gurgaon Road New Delhi 110 037. Mr. Dewakar Goel GM, HR-Northern Region Indian Aviation Academy NIAMAR Society, Gurgaon Road New Delhi 110 037. Mr. M.L.Sharma Public Grievance Officer-Operations Airports Authority of India, 2nd Floor, C Block, Corporate Headquarters Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan Safdarjung Airport New Delhi 110 003. Mr. S.K.Sharma GM Airport Authority of India Operational Offices Complex Rangpuri New Delhi 110 037. Sh. Puran Singh S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh H.No.34, Village Ambrahi New Delhi. Respondents O R D E R
The applicant submits that she is the wife of Late Shri Prudhvi Singh. Her husband while working as Sepoy in the Indian Army was arrested by the Pakisthan Army during the India Pakistan War of 1971. Later, he was released and died. After the War is over, the Government issued orders providing help to those Soldiers who were died, misplaced or arrested by Pakistan Army during the War of 1971. Since the husband of the applicant was arrested by the Pakistan Army as aforesaid, a letter was issued to the applicant by the Government of India for appointment in a Government job.
2. It is further stated that the Respondent No.8, some how secured the letter meant for the applicant and by forging the documents and by counterfeiting the seals, fraudulently obtained the employment of a Group `D category post in the Airports Authority of India, Palam, which was actually meant for the applicant.
3. The applicant having come to know recently, about the fraud and cheating played by the Respondent No.8, filed a Criminal Complaint No.571 of 2014 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwaraka Courts, New Delhi against the Respondent No.8 on 18.07.2014, under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC for various offences under IPC.
4. It is further submitted that the applicant got issued a legal notice dated 24.07.2014 to the respondent-Air Ports Authority of India, in which Respondent No.8 is working, calling upon them to suspend Respondent No.8 and to conduct departmental inquiry against him and to withhold all the financial benefits to him till the disposal of the aforesaid criminal complaint, and also to terminate the services of the Respondent No.8. As there is no response from the respondents, she filed the present OA.
5. Heard Shri Arvind K. Vashistha, learned counsel for the applicant, and perused the contents of the OA and its annexures.
6. The applicant, who is aged about 62 years, has not sought any relief for herself either by way of appointment or by way of payment of any amount. The subject matter of this OA does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, since the applicant who is neither a Government servant nor seeking recruitment to the Government service, filed the present OA, seeking a direction to the respondents to take disciplinary action against Respondent No.8, on the ground that he secured the employment meant for the applicant by playing fraud.
7. The Criminal Complaint filed by the applicant against the Respondent No.8 for the alleged offences under IPC is pending for adjudication before a Competent Criminal Court.
8. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OA is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
(V. Ajay Kumar) Member (J) /nsnrvak/