The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioners had not exhausted the statutory remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is the first court of instance for central government employees under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4619 of 2024
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sudhir Kumar Bijpuria, Advocate Mr.Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 22-03-2024
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
Patna High Court CWJC No.4619 of 2024 dt.22-03-2024
2/4
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate direction/s, writ/s, order/s to the respondents for quashing show cause notice dated 18.10.2023 and charge memo served upon the petitioners dated 04.12.2023 in light of direction of the Hon’ble Court passed in CWJC No. 23977/2019 and CWJC No. 22790/2019 dated 06.02.2023 and especially paragraph 20 wherein Hon’ble Court has given liberty to the concerned respondents to resort to disciplinary proceeding under Regulation11 read with 12 and any other Regulation of Regulations, 1959. Such departmental enquiry shall be initiated and completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents not to proceed with the departmental proceeding in violation of order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court and during pendency of this writ petition stay the continuation of said proceeding so that matter may not be precipitated in violation of order.
(iii) To pass such other order or orders as your lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated herein below.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
initiation of inquiry in the light of the Para 20 of the order dated 06.02.2023, is beyond the time limit stipulated. It is necessary to re-produce Para 20 of the order dated 06.02.2023 passed in CWJC No. 23977 of 2019, and it reads as under:-
“20. The concerned Respondent is hereby directed to extend all monetary
Patna High Court CWJC No.4619 of 2024 dt.22-03-2024 3/4
benefits to the petitioners during the intervening period from the date of their termination from service till date, reserving liberty to the concerned Respondents to resort to disciplinary proceedings under Regulation11 read with 12 and any other Regulation of Regulations, 1959. Such departmental inquiry shall be initiated and completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.”
3. No doubt, the charge memo issued on 04.12.2023, and
it is beyond the time limit stipulated by the Court. The concerned respondents have not sought for extension of time stipulated in Para 20. Petitioners have remedy of filing contempt petition as well as filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the light of contempt of Tribunal under relevant provision and under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC261 read with the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1987) 1 SCC 124. Central Administrative Tribunal is being is first Court of instance for the Central Government employees and such of those employees with reference to the notification issued by the Central Government in the light of the relevant Section under Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable to the extent that petitioner has not
Patna High Court CWJC No.4619 of 2024 dt.22-03-2024 4/4
exhausted the first Court of instance, namely, Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to invoke remedy under contempt of Tribunal application under relevant Rules and under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the jurisdiction Central Administrative Tribunal.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
abhishekkr/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Is a writ petition maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal?
Whether the departmental inquiry initiated beyond the court-stipulated time limit violates the previous order?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.Referred¶33
L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC261
S.P. Sampath Kumar Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶33
S.P. Sampath Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1987) 1 SCC 124 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhrambir Kumar
Shailendra Kumar Choudhary
Amrendra Kumar Ram
The Employees State Insurance Corporation
The Joint Director, (Recruitment), Employees State Insurance Corporation
The Additional Commissioner and the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation
P. B. Bajanthri
Alok Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
