JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner was removed from service by impugned order dated 09.06.2016 pursuant to a departmental enquiry. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 29.04.2016. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision petition. However, as the revision petition was time barred, the same was not forwarded to the Revising authority. The impugned order dated 03.02.2017 is reproduced below:-

"As this Revision Petition is time-barred, hence it is not considered for forwarding to Revising Authority (ADRM/RNY)."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that above impugned order dated 03.02.2017 is not a decision made with respect to a service matter as required under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. He submits that the same is an administrative order and as the Revising authority did not pass the said impugned order, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition and send the petitioner's revision petition to the co