Dr. Sachchida Nand Sharma vs M/S Steel Authority Of India ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3927 Jhar

                             1                                 LPA No.290/2021


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                L.P.A. No.290 of 2021
                                   ------

Dr. Sachchida Nand Sharma, aged about-69 years, S/o-Late Raghunath Sharma, resident of Qr. No.-1057, Sector-4-C, Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro .... .... Appellant Versus

1. M/s Steel Authority of India Limited through its Chairman, Ispat Bhawan, SAIL, Lodi Road, P.O. & P.S.-Lodi Road, New Delhi.

2. The Chairman & Reviewing Authority and Appellate Authority, SAIL, Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road, P.O. & P.S.-Lodi Road, New Delhi.

3. The Managing Director & Disciplinary Authority, P.O. & P.S.-

Bokaro Main Administrative Building, BSAIL, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. .... .... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

------

         For the Appellant            : Mr. Rama Kanti Tiwari, Advocate
         For the SAIL                 : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
                                   ------

10/Dated: 12.10.2023

1. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause-10 of Letters

Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 13.08.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.2641

of 2011, has been assailed merely on the ground that when the

matter has not been entertained on merit under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India by this Court, then there should not have been

any observation on the issue on merit, as has been opined by the

learned Single Judge, as would appear from the observation/finding

given at paragraph-8 thereof.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has

submitted that there is no issue that the same is coming under the

fold of the Administrative Tribunal Act by virtue of notification issued

in the year, 2010 and hence, by way of Court of first instance, the

writ petitioner ought to have ventilated his grievance before the

Central Administrative Tribunal having with its jurisdiction. But, due to

wrong advice, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, has been filed.

3. Learned Single Judge, however, on consideration of the fact

that the High Court, in exercise of power conferred under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, not supposed to enter once the

notification has been issued bringing the Steel Authority of India

Limited under the fold of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

4. But the grievance of the writ petitioner is mainly the finding

recorded by the learned Single Judge at paragraph-8, whereby and

whereunder, even though, the learned Single Judge at paragraph-9

has disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to

approach the learned Central Administrative Tribunal having

jurisdiction over the subject matter, but even then, at paragraph-8,

the finding has been given that there is no violation of principle of

natural justice.

5. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-SAIL has not disputed the contention raised on behalf of

the writ petitioner-appellant to the effect that once the writ petitioner

has been given liberty to approach the Central Administrative

Tribunal then, there should not have been discussion as has been

made at paragraph-8 of the impugned order by the learned Single

Judge, about the issue of principle of natural justice which touches

the merit on the issue.

6. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on consideration of the rival submissions, is of the view

that once the learned Single Judge has passed an order by giving

liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the Central Administrative

Tribunal by taking into consideration the fact that the issue arises, is

having with the jurisdiction with the Central Administrative Tribunal,

by way of Court of first instance, in view of the provision of Section

14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

7. But, on consideration of the order passed by the learned Single

Judge, as would be evident from paragraph-8 that the learned Single

Judge has discussed about the issue on merit, i.e., there is no

violation of principle of natural justice, which according to our

considered view, should not have been there by way of recording a

finding once the writ petition has been disposed of giving liberty to

approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.

8. This Court, having considered the aforesaid fact, is of the view

that the observation/finding recorded by the learned Single Judge at

paragraph-8, is hereby quashed and set aside.

9. In the result, the instant appeal is partly allowed.

10. Since, there is already liberty having been granted by the

learned Single Judge at paragraph-9 of the impugned order, as such,

it is left open upon the writ petitioner-appellant to approach the

Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

11. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

12. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any also stands

disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Navneet Kumar, J.)

Rohit/-