1999 Supreme(Gau) 223
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
A.K.Patnaik, J.
Niranjan Ghose -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and Another -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 5816 of 1998
Decided On : 26-06-1999
Advocates Appeared:
U.Bhuyan, S.N.Bhuyan, N.Dutta, P.G.Barua
The Central Administrative Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to service matters of All India Services, and the High Court cannot entertain a writ petition directly without first approaching the Tribunal.
Headnote:
SERVICE MATTERS - JURISDICTION OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - ALL INDIA SERVICES (DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT) RULES, 1958 - RULE 6 (1) (B) - DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RETIRED MEMBER OF ALL INDIA SERVICE - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - WHETHER HIGH COURT CAN ENTERTAIN WRIT PETITION DIRECTLY WITHOUT FIRST APPROACHING CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired member of the Indian Administrative Service, challenged the departmental proceedings initiated against him under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 read with Rule 6 (1) (b) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958. The petitioner contended that the Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute since he had retired from service and that the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the dispute related to service matters of an All India Service member. The Court further held that the High Court could not entertain the writ petition directly without first approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, as the Tribunal was the Court of first instance in respect of service matters of All India Services.
Issues: 1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute relating to departmental proceedings against a retired member of an All India Service? 2. Whether the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without first approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to service matters of All India Services, including disciplinary matters and retirement benefits, under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 2. The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition directly without first approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of service matters of All India Services, as the Tribunal is the Court of first instance for such matters.
Final Decision: The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner could approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for relief.
The petitioner was a member of the Indian Administrative Service working in the State Govt of Assam. He retired from service on 31.5.97 on superannuation. After his retirement, he received a memorandum dated 17.9.98 issued by Chief Secretary to the Govt of Assam. In the said memorandum, it is stated that the Govt of Assam proposed to hold an enquiry against petitioner under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 read with Rule 6 (1) (b) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958. Along with the said memorandum dated 17th September, 1998, the articles of charges and statement of imputations of misconduct in support of the articles of charges against petitioner have been annexed as Annexures I and II. The charges against the petitioner are that while he was holding the post of Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Excise Department, a notification was issued for merger of State Sales Tax with the State Excise Duty on 16.9.94 pursuant to a Cabinet decision taken on 22.12.92. But the petitioner withdraw the said notification dated 16.9.94 and issued another notification dated 20.9.94 without the approval of the Cabinet. The petitioner was therefore guilty of violating the provisions of the Assam Rules of Executive Business and Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Simultaneously, the petitioner was also served with a communication dated 17th September, 1998 of the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Assam informing him that the Govt of India by order dated 17.9.98 has conveyed sanction for institution of departmental proceedings against tfye petitioner for major penalty under Rule 6 (1) (b) (i) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958. Along with the said communication dated 17th September, 1998, a copy of the order dated 17th September, 1998 of the Govt of India, Ministry of Personnel, sanctioning departmental proceedings against the petitioner was also enclosed. By the memorandum dated 17th September, 1998 the petitioner was asked to his submit his written statement of his defence. In reply, the petitioner sent a letter dated 29th September, 1998 to the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Assam stating inter alia that the alleged events took place during the period 1992-94 and he was not a position to recollect the then ground realities and that in the interest of equity, justice and fair play, the State Govt should drop the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner. When no reply was ifcceived by the petitioner from the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Assam, the petitioner wrote another letter dated 1st November, 1998 to the Chief Secretary, Govt of Assam, reiterating his request to drop the departmental proceedings against him. In the said letter dated 1st November, 1998 the petitioner also contended mat the departmental proceedings were initiated against him in violation of the provisions of Rule 6 (1) (b) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement)-Rules, 1958 and therefore e should be dropped. Since, the departmental proceedings against the petitioner have not been dropped, the petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the memorandum dated 17th September, 1998 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Govt of Assam as well as enquiry proposed to be held against the petitioner pursuant to the said memorandum. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay his pending financial and retirement benefits such as, gratuity, pension, commutation leave encasement etc.
2. Mr. SN Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.5.97 and is no longer a member of an All India Service. The Central Administrative Tribunal therefore does not have jurisdiction under section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 (for short the Act) to decide the present dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. He argued that even if
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
