Quashed

Pramod Kumar Gupta v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC27 Oct 2021CW/7470/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the CAT Jodhpur Bench order dismissing a departmental application due to territorial jurisdiction. The court held that since part of the cause of action arose in Jodhpur, the Jodhpur Bench had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the CAT is quashed and the Original Application No.290/00066/2020 is restored before CAT Jodhpur Bench to be decided on merits.

Pramod Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7470/2021

¶3

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).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur - 302007

¶8

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

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Order

¶13

Reserved on: 22.10.2021

¶14

Pronounced on: 27.10.2021 PER MR JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL:

¶15

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

¶16

(2 of 8)

¶17

[CW-7470/2021]

¶18

Jodhpur Bench and the better place of redressal for grievance of petitioner is before the Kolkata Bench.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

(3 of 8)

¶24

[CW-7470/2021]

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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:

¶28

i) That impugned charge sheet dt. 2.6.2014 (Annexure A/1), passed by the 2^nd 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.

¶29

(4 of 8)

¶30

[CW-7470/2021]

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

(5 of 8)

¶36

[CW-7470/2021]

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

We have heard both the parties and scanned the material placed on record.

¶41

(6 of 8)

¶42

[CW-7470/2021]

¶43

In the instant writ petition, following points fall for our consideration:

¶44

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

¶45

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 ?

¶46

For deciding the territorial jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal, rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules is relevant, which reads as under:

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

(ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen:

¶50

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.

¶51

(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.”

¶52

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

¶53

(7 of 8)

¶54

[CW-7470/2021]

¶55

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.

¶56

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 -

¶57

“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.”

¶58

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.

¶59

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

¶60

(8 of 8)

¶61

[CW-7470/2021]

¶62

Bench of the CAT to entertain the present OA. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter.

¶63

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.

¶64

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.

¶65

Both the parties are directed to appear before the CAT Jodhpur Bench on 15.12.2021.

¶66

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶67

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶68

19-mma-AnilKC/-

Pramod Kumar Gupta v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Gupta v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rita Soni @ Rekha Vs Jagdeep Singh Kushwaha

State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Jyoti Jingar

M/S. Pooja Constrction Company Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Vs Kailash Bhansali

State of Rajasthan Vs Niyaj Khan

Kisan Sangharsh Samiti Vs Union of India