Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, NYAPATHY VIJAY, JJ.
Rajnish Kumar Rai - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11197 Of 2024
Decided On : 20-09-2024
Jurisdiction - Writ Petition - Article 226 - Central Administrative Tribunal - The court discussed the jurisdictional issues surrounding the Central Administrative Tribunal and the implications of pending proceedings in higher courts, ultimately affirming the Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioner's application as not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Indian Police Service Officer, challenged the dismissal of his application by the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled it was not maintainable due to ongoing proceedings regarding his status in service and jurisdictional issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Central Administrative Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in dismissing the application, as the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court, and the petitioner was not rendered remediless.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad had jurisdiction to hear the petitioner's application given the ongoing proceedings in other jurisdictions regarding his service status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the determination of the petitioner's service status was crucial for establishing jurisdiction, and since the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal's dismissal was justified.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) :
Heard Sri I. H. Syed, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Malireddy Gowtham, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, through virtual mode.
2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 20.03.2024 in O.A.No.662 of 2023, which has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (‘Central Administrative Tribunal’ in short), as not maintainable.
3. The following is the prayer made in the writ petition:
4. The petitioner’s case is that he is an Indian Police Service Officer of 1992 batch of Gujarat. He was deputed as the Inspector General of Police in the Central Reserved Police Force(CRPF) vide order dated 20.03.2015 of the 1st respondent-Union of India. He joined duties at the Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi on 29.04.2015 and was subsequently posted as I.G., North Eastern Sector, CRPF, Shillong, where he joined on 06.05.2015 and served in that capacity until 14.06.2017. There was some joint operation involving multiple security forces and there were news of some fake encounters. The petitioner was transferred to I.G, CIAT School, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh and he relinquished the charge of I.G, NES, Shillong, on 14.06.2017. On 16.06.2017 and 19.06.2017, newspapers reported that the 1st respondent entrusted a preliminary enquiry to Shri Ashok Prasad, IPS (Retired), Advisor to the MHA, to enquire into the role of the petitioner in connection with the procedural aspects of the discrete enquiry conducted by him. On 23.06.2017, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent concerning the preliminary inquiry regarding the fake encounter, for which there was no response. Hence, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2670 of 2017 before the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, challenging his transfer to Chittoor and the institution of preliminary enquiry against him, which was dismissed on 09.08.2017 on the ground that since the petitioner had joined his new post, the grievance regarding his transfer had become infructuous. As no preliminary enquiry was initiated, the Principal Bench did not consider the newspaper reports and as the respondents did not disclose the preliminary enquiry that had been entrusted to Shri Ashok Prasad. The petitioner also filed Review Application No.205 of 2017 in O.A.No.2670 of 2017 but he same was dismissed on 04.10.2017. Aggrieved by the dismissal of O.A.No.2670 of 2017 and R.A.No.205 of 2017 in the said O.A., the petitioner filed W.P(Civil) 10828 of 2017 before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to obtain the current status of the Fact Finding Inquiry as the 1st respondent therein admitted that a preliminary enquiry had been instituted against the petitioner. Subsequently the respondents were directed to file an affidavit to that effect. On 21.08.2018, the 1st respondent filed an affidavit stating that the preliminary inquiry against the petitioner had not been finalized and that they would inform the same as soon as the same was finalized.
5. During pendency o
The court emphasized that jurisdictional issues must be resolved before a tribunal can adjudicate on matters, especially when related proceedings are pending in higher courts.
Second writ petition against same order not maintainable when prior one dismissed for non-compliance with peremptory defect-removal orders; litigant's casual conduct constitutes misuse of process, pr....
Jurisdiction of courts except Supreme Court - It is not open for litigant to directly approach the High Court even in cases where vires of statutory legislation is challenged, by overlooking jurisdic....
The decision of a disciplinary authority must be supported by substantial evidence, and failure to do so renders the findings perverse and quashable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
