The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of exhaustion of alternative remedy and the interpretation of statutory provisions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

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 concerned Revising authority for his decision, who can, not only decide on the merits of the revision petition, but even whether the same is time barred. He further submits that Rule 25(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 does not provide a limitation period for filing a revision petition.

4. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing counsel for the Railways, on the other hand, submits that though the Revising authority did not give his decision with regard to the petitioner's revision petition, the fact that the petitioner's revision petition was declared to be time barred by the officer of the Railways has to be deemed to be a decision made in respect of the service of the petitioner, which thus comes within the provisions of Section 3(q)(iv) and (v) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. He also submits that as per Rly.Bd's E(D&A) 81 RG 6- 59 dt.01.06.1983 and E(D&A) 84 RG 6/44 dt.02.12.1986 (SC 74/87, 1888/86, SE 298/86), the time limit for preferring a revision petition will be the same as provided for an appeal under Rule 20 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, i.e. 45 days from the service of the order sought to be revised. He also submits that the Revising authority may, however, entertain the revision petition after the expiry of the period of limitation, if the petitioner has sufficient cause for not preferring the same on time. He also submits that in view of the judgment of the Seven Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar -Vs- Union of India and others, (1997) 3 SCC 261, the petitioner would have to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench with his grievance, as the same is an alternative efficacious remedy provided by law.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The only issue raised and pressed by the petitioner's counsel is that the revision petition has not been disposed of by the Revising authority. The stand of the respondents' counsel on the other hand is that the writ petition should be dismissed as there is an alternative efficacious remedy available.

7. The stand of the learned Standing counsel for the Railways is that as the petitioner was holding a Civil Post under the Railways and having regard to Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with the decision of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra), the petitioner has to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench as it is the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the statute.

8. Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 reads as follows:-

"(q) "service matters", in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or