Pramod Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 16285 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7470/2021

Pramod Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village And Post - Udaipur Wati, Near Vidya Bharti School, Distt. Jhunjhunu, At Present Holding The Post Of Assistant Director Postal Services, Office Of The Director Postal Life Insurance, 7, Koyala Ghat Street, Calcutta - 700001 (Wb).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Deptt Of Posts, Ministry Of Communications And It, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001

2. Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur -

302007

3. Chief Post Master General, Department Of Post, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata - 700012.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Jai Kumar Kaushik
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, ASG



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                    Order

Reserved on: 22.10.2021
Pronounced on: 27.10.2021
PER MR JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL:

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner,

impugning the order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (hereinafter for short 'the

CAT'), whereby the Original Application No.290/00066/2020 filed

by the petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable for want

of jurisdiction before the Jodhpur Bench and the CAT has opined

that the OA was not amenable in territorial jurisdiction of the

(2 of 8) [CW-7470/2021]

Jodhpur Bench and the better place of redressal for grievance of

petitioner is before the Kolkata Bench.

The relevant facts of the case pertaining to the issue of

territorial jurisdiction of the CAT are that the petitioner was

transferred from post of SPO Jhunjhunu Division to the post of

Assistant Director of Postal Services at Jodhpur vide order dated

09.04.2012 (Annx.1); the petitioner joined and assumed the

charge of Assistant Director of Postal Services at Jodhpur w.e.f.

10.04.2012. Petitioner submits that while he was posted at

Jodhpur, he was placed under suspension under rule 10 of CCS

(CCA) Rules, 1965 w.e.f. 11.04.2012 vide order dated 10.04.2012

for the reason 'a criminal offence was under investigation'. The

petitioner was implicated in a criminal case before the court

SPE/CBI Jaipur, alleging commission of offence under Sections 7

and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act 1988 i.e. demanding and receiving bribe.

Petitioner submits that while he was posted at Jodhpur,

charge-sheet dated 02.06.2014 (Annx.A/1 with OA) was served

upon him under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

After being served with the charge memo, the petitioner filed

first OA No.290/00315/2015 before the CAT at Jodhpur and

initially interim order dated 02.09.2015 was passed therein and

finally the OA was decided vide order dated 19.01.2017, holding

that till the petitioner discloses his defence in support of Article-1

before the criminal court, the respondents are restrained from

proceeding further in the departmental proceedings.

Before passing the final order dated 19.01.2017 by the CAT,

the petitioner was transferred on 26.01.2016 to Kolkata and since

then he is continuing at Kolkata.

(3 of 8) [CW-7470/2021]

Petitioner submits that on the charge No.1, no disciplinary

proceeding took place, yet on the charges No.2 and 3, the

disciplinary proceedings were conducted by one Shri Ashok Paul,

SSPO, Howrah Division. The last inquiry proceedings were held on

31.08.2019. In the criminal proceedings, the petitioner has been

acquitted from the criminal charge after full fledged trial on merits

vide judgment dated 06.09.2019.

The petitioner submits that he submitted representation and

in response thereto, petitioner has received letter/oder dated

29.01.2020 (Annx.A/2 with the OA) from respondent No.3 and has

been informed that the departmental inquiry proceedings against

the petitioner be completed on all charges including Article-1

(charge No.1) on priority.

The petitioner submits that now he has filed this second OA

No.290/00066/2020 on 09.02.2020 before the Jodhpur Bench of

the Central Administrative Tribunal wherein following relief has

been prayed for:

i) That impugned charge sheet dt. 2.6.2014 (Annexure A/1),

passed by the 2nd respondent and the proceedings in

pursuance with letter dated 29.1.2020 (Annexure A/2), and

all subsequent proceedings thereof, may be declared illegal

and the same may be quashed. The respondents may be

directed to allow all consequential benefits as if no such

disciplinary proceedings were ever in existence against him.

ii) That any other direction, or orders may be passed in

favour of the applicant which may be deemed just and

proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the

interest of justice.

(4 of 8) [CW-7470/2021]

The respondents filed reply to the original application. In

reply, the respondents raised preliminary objection about

maintainability of the second OA filed by petitioner before the CAT

at Jodhpur Bench. The respondent took objections that neither

petitioner resides/is posted presently within territorial jurisdiction

of Jodhpur Bench nor is the office of competent authority is

located within territorial jurisdiction of the CAT, Jodhpur Bench.

The CAT, Jodhpur Bench vide impugned order dated

05.03.2021 decided the preliminary objection of the respondent

and dismissed the OA filed by petitioner for want of jurisdiction

before the Jodhpur Bench. Hence, the petitioner has filed the

instant writ petition assailing the order dated 05.03.2021.

The counsel for petitioner has argued that the petitioner was

transferred at Jodhpur by order dated 09.04.2012 and in

pursuance thereof he assumed charge of the post of Assistant

Director of Postal Services at Jodhpur w.e.f. 10.04.2012. The

counsel submits that the CAT has wrongly observed in the

impugned order that the petitioner was posted at Jodhpur after

being suspended. The transfer order dated 09.04.2012 does not

support such observation. The counsel for the petitioner further

argued that during the course of posting of petitioner at Jodhpur,

the charge-sheet dated 02.06.2014 was served upon him.

In the present OA, the petitioner assailed the charge-sheet

dated 02.06.2014 and made a prayer to quash the charge-sheet

dated 02.06.2014 and to declare all subsequent proceedings in

pursuance thereof and in pursuance with the letter dated

29.01.2020 as illegal. The counsel for the petitioner has argued

that the cause of action to assail the charge-sheet dated

02.06.2014 has arisen within the jurisdiction of Jodhpur Bench of

(5 of 8) [CW-7470/2021]

the CAT and earlier also, his previous OA No.290/00315/2015 was

entertained and decided on merits by the CAT Jodhpur Bench by

order dated 19.01.2017.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that partly the cause of

action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Jodhpur Bench and

as per rule 6(ii) of the Central Administrative Tribunals

(Procedure) Rules, the CAT Jodhpur Bench has the jurisdiction to

entertain and decide the present OA of the petitioner. Counsel for

the petitioner has argued that the CAT has committed

jurisdictional error in observing that the better place for redressal

of the grievance of the petitioner will before Kolkata Bench.

According to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 05.03.2021

suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error and deserves to be

quashed and the OA filed by the petitioner deserves to be restored

at its original number before the CAT Jodhpur Bench, to be

decided on merits.

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has

argued that at the time of filing of the present OA on 09.02.2020,

the petitioner was posted at Kolkata. The impugned charge-sheet

dated 02.06.2014 was passed by the respondent No.2 and the

impugned letter/order dated 29.01.2020 was issued by the

respondent No.3, who do not come within the territorial

jurisdiction of CAT Jodhpur Bench. Learned counsel further

submits that the petitioner has remedy for ventilating his

grievances before Kolkata Bench of CAT and no interference in the

impugned order is required to be made by this Court within the

scope of Article 226 of the Constitution.

We have heard both the parties and scanned the material

placed on record.

(6 of 8) [CW-7470/2021]

In the instant writ petition, following points fall for our

consideration:

1) Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench has jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application filed by the petitioner?

2) Whether the CAT Jodhpur Bench committed illegality and jurisdictional error in not entertaining the OA of the petitioner to adjudicate on merits and relegating the petitioner to approach before Kolkata Bench of the CAT ?

For deciding the territorial jurisdiction of Central

Administrative Tribunal, rule 6 of the Central Administrative

Tribunal (Procedure) Rules is relevant, which reads as under:

"6. (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction-

(i) the applicant is posed for the time being, or

(ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen: Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under section 25, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application."

We find that in the present OA, the petitioner has assailed

the charge-sheet dated 02.06.2014 and has prayed to quash the

same. By perusal of Annx.1- the transfer order dated 09.04.2012,

it reveals that the petitioner was transferred from SPOs Jhunjhunu

Division to the Assistant Director Postal Services-I O/o the PMG

(WR) Jodhpur. The charge-sheet dated 02.06.2014 in question

(7 of 8) [CW-7470/2021]

was served upon the petitioner while he was posted as Assistant

Director (under suspension) O/o PMG (WR) Jodhpur. Therefore,

partly the cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the

charge-sheet dated 02.06.2014 had arisen at Jodhpur.

We find that as per rule 6(ii) of the aforesaid Rules, present

OA filed by the petitioner is maintainable before the CAT Jodhpur

Bench. The Tribunal, in relation to jurisdiction before the Jodhpur

Bench, has observed in the impugned order that -

"The applicant was posted at Jodhpur after being suspended just to keep him away from the incident where the respondents hold that his presence will not be conducive for continuing with the disciplinary proceedings as he may get an opportunity to tamper with the documents or manipulate the documents. Hence, the transfer of the applicant to Jodhpur was also based on the incident and the transfer at Jodhpur was nothing, but a temporary arrangement just to keep him away from the place of incident."

Such observation can be said to be misplaced & perverse and

do not find support with the transfer order of the petitioner. The

first OA No.290/00315/2015, filed by the petitioner in relation of

charge No.1 of the same charge-sheet, was entertained and

decided by the CAT Jodhpur Bench. In the present OA, the

petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet as a whole and made a

prayer to quash the same for the reasons and grounds as

mentioned in the OA. The cause of action, in part, had arisen

within the jurisdiction of the CAT Jodhpur Bench.

This is not in dispute that the petitioner has also option to

file present OA before the jurisdiction of Kolkata Bench of CAT but

the same does not exclude the territorial jurisdiction of Jodhpur

(8 of 8) [CW-7470/2021]

Bench of the CAT to entertain the present OA. The Tribunal has

not considered this aspect of the matter.

Thus, for the discussion made herein above, both the points

referred herein above are decided accordingly in favour of the

petitioner. The Original Application filed by petitioner is

maintainable within the jurisdiction of CAT, Jodhpur Bench and the

CAT has committed illegality in dismissing the OA for want of

territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order dated 05.03.2021

deserves to be quashed.

The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 05.03.2021

passed by the CAT is quashed and the Original Application

No.290/00066/2020 filed by petitioner is ordered to be restored

before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, to be

decided on merits in accordance with law.

Both the parties are directed to appear before the CAT

Jodhpur Bench on 15.12.2021.

                                   (SUDESH BANSAL),J                                         (VIJAY BISHNOI),J


                                    19-mma-AnilKC/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)