Back
2003 Supreme(Raj) 880
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : S.K. Keshote,K.S. Rathore
. - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 505 of 2003
Decided On : 11/07/2003
Appearance :
Prakash Chandra Jain, Advocate for the Appellant.
Headnote:
Suspension Order - Service Matter - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Article 226/227 of the Constitution - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, and the unconstitutional exclusion of jurisdiction clauses in legislations enacted under Articles 323-A and 323-B. The court emphasized that the Tribunals created under Article 323-B of the Constitution are competent to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules, subject to scrutiny before the Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal falls. The court held that in service matters falling under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, litigants cannot directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and that the Tribunal is the first court in service matters. The court dismissed the appeal with exemplary costs for attempting to abuse the process of the court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Indian Defence Estate Service Group-A Officer, challenged his suspension through various petitions and appeals before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal with exemplary costs for attempting to abuse the process of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's direct approach to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in service matters was not maintainable, and that the appellant had attempted to abuse the process of the court.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the appellant's direct approach to the High Court in service matters, and the abuse of the court's process by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, and the competence of Tribunals created under Article 323-B of the Constitution to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules in service matters.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5000, and the appellant was directed to deposit the costs in the Relief Fund of the Governor of Rajasthan within one month.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
- The court clarified that in service matters governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, litigants cannot directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution; instead, the Tribunal is the first forum for such disputes (!) (!) .
- The jurisdiction of the Tribunals created under Article 323-B of the Constitution includes the power to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules, but decisions of these Tribunals are subject to scrutiny by the High Court within its jurisdiction (!) (!) .
- The appellant, an officer of the Indian Defence Estate Service, challenged his suspension order through multiple proceedings, including before the Tribunal and the High Court (!) (!) .
- The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on the grounds that, under the applicable legal framework and rules, the petition was not maintainable because the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the appellant had already challenged the suspension order there (!) (!) (!) .
- The court emphasized that the appellant’s attempt to bypass the Tribunal and directly approach the High Court under Article 226 was improper and constituted an abuse of the court process (!) (!) (!) .
- The decision reiterated that the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution is inviolable, but the Tribunals created under Article 323-B are competent to examine the constitutional validity of laws and rules, with their decisions being subject to judicial review by the High Court (!) (!) .
- The court highlighted that the rules and procedures, including those related to withdrawal of petitions and res judicata, prevent a litigant from repeatedly challenging the same order or cause of action without proper permission, to prevent abuse of the legal process (!) (!) (!) .
- The court imposed exemplary costs on the appellant for attempting to misuse the legal process, ordering him to deposit Rs. 5000 in the Relief Fund of the Governor of Rajasthan within one month, and specified consequences for non-compliance (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
S.K. Keshote, J.-This special appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed by the appellant against the order dated 21st of December, 2002 of the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9796/2002.
2. Thelearned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant out of which this special appeal arises on the ground that in this matter the writ petition is not maintainable before the learned single Judge. The learned Single Judge placed reliance in support of his order on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1).
3. Theappellant joined his service as Indian Defence Estate Service Group-A Officer in the year 1987. In the month of July, 2001, he was, on transfer, posted as Defence Estate Officer, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur.
4. Under the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 24th of May, 2002 the appellant was placed under suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. The appellant challenged this order by filing the
O.A. No. 256/2002 on 29th of May, 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). The respondent No. 1 to 3 before the Tribunal contested this application. The learned Tribunal under its order dated 27th of September, 2002 dismissed the O.A. No. 256/2002 of the appellant. The learned Tribunal held that the competent authority has taken a decision keeping in view the nature of the misconduct and thus it is not found it a fit case in which interference is to be made in the order of suspension of the appellant.
5. This judgment of the learned Tribunal has been challenged by the appellant before this court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 75 16/2002. This writ petition came up for preliminary hearing in the court on 23rd of October, 2002. The learned counsel for the appellant, who is also the counsel for the petitioner in that writ petition, prayed for withdrawal of that writ petition and accordingly the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Though, the copy of this order made in the writ petition aforesaid has not been placed on the record but the zerox copy of the certified copy thereof has been furnished to the court for the perusal by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is marked as Court Document No. 1.
6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9796/2002 has been presented on 16th of December, 2002. In the petition the prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside of the suspension order (Annexure-1) dated 24th of May, 2002 and to pass such further orders giving him all consequential benefits with heavy costs against the respondents. The further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to retain the appellant at the same post where he was working before the issue of the suspension order. Lastly he prayed that any other relief which this court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be passed in favour of the petitioner.
7. Inthe writ petition in para No. 9 thereof a vague and bald reference has been made of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 75 16/2002. We consider it appropriate to reproduce here the exact text of para No. 9 of the writ petition, which reads as under,
“9. That the petitioner filed a writ petition before Double Bench of this Hon’ble Court appealing against the order of the Hon’ble CAT but the same was withdrawn at the initial stage of admission itself on 210.2002.”
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the writ petition the appellant has come up with altogether different case and grievance. The grievance is made that the suspension order of the appellant was not revoked. His subsistence allowance was not reviewed. His revision petition was not decided by the competent authority and the charge sheet was not served upon him for considerable long time. However fact remains, he prayed for setting aside of the suspension. It is further submitted that the appellant has
