Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11804

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ajay Pratap Singh, J
Rakesh Mani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application|OA No. 529 of 2022

Advocates:
For Applicant: Rajesh Kumar Sinha
For Respondents: Sunil Kumar

Original Application before Administrative Tribunal dismissed at admission for being barred by one-year limitation under Section 21 AT Act without condonation application or sufficient cause shown for two-year delay.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 19, 20, 21 - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rules 12(2), 14(24) - Original Application challenging appointment of ad-hoc disciplinary authority and transfer order - Application filed after more than two years from cause of action arising on dates of transfer and disciplinary order - No explanation for delay provided in OA nor any application for condonation filed despite Registry objection - Section 21(3) requires applicant to satisfy Tribunal of sufficient cause for delay beyond one-year limit - Tribunal cannot condone delay suo motu without proper explanation - OA liable to be dismissed in limine at admission stage for being barred by limitation. (Paras 7, 8, 17, 18, 23)

(B) Limitation - Extension of time - Principles akin to Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 applicable - Delay attributable to applicant’s own actions in disciplinary proceedings cannot be condoned - Cause of action not recurring; arises once on impugned order - Tribunal bound by statutory limits, functioning within four corners of Act. (Paras 11, 18, 19, 21)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, posted as Assistant, challenged transfer order and appointment of ad-hoc disciplinary authority for initiating inquiry into alleged misconduct. Prior OA already pending against transfer. Present OA filed after over two years without seeking condonation of delay, claiming it was within time.

Findings of Court:
OA barred by limitation under Section 21; no sufficient cause shown for delay; applicant cannot benefit from own delays in proceedings.

Issues: Whether OA challenging disciplinary authority appointment and seeking reinstatement to original posting is maintainable given prior pending OA on transfer and expiry of one-year limitation without condonation application.

Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal must enforce strict limitation under Section 21; dismissal warranted at admission if delay unexplained, as applicant must demonstrate sufficient cause under sub-section (3); no jurisdiction to entertain time-barred applications absent condonation.

Result: OA dismissed in limine at admission stage.

Table of Content
1. parties and procedural details (Para 1 , 2)
2. transfer and disciplinary initiation facts (Para 3 , 4 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. parties' contentions on maintainability (Para 5 , 6)
4. framing limitation issue (Para 7 , 8)
5. interpretation of at act limitation provisions (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
6. no condonation without explanation; precedents (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. oa dismissed as time-barred (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

ORDER

PER:- AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [JUDICIAL]

1. Heard learned counsel for parties on admission through video conferencing mode.

2. By way of present Original Application filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 (herein after for brevity referred as “A.T. Act, 1985”), applicant has prayed for setting aside order dated 4^th August, 2022 issued by Secretary, ICAR in exercise of powers conferred by the President, ICAR vide Council’s order dated 08.02.2008 and appointed under Rule 12 (2) of Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short Rules 1965) appointed Director, ICAR-Atari as ad-hoc disciplinary authority as the post of Director in the institute is presently held by Acting Director. So also seeking direction to allow applicant to join his original place of posting at ICAR-RCER, .

FACTS IN BRIEF

3. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by applicant in instant OA that applicant was promoted on the post of Assistant on 31.12.2015 in Level- 6, G.P. Rs. 4200/-. Applicant on 06.05.2015 joined at ICAR, RCER, and continued to discharge duties with utmost sincerity and devotion. The Director, ICAR-RCER transferred applicant from official duties and allocated work/official duties vide office order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P-V). Thereafter vide office order dated 10.06.2022 (Annexure P-VII) Director (Acting) ICAR,RCER transferred, illegally to applicant from ICAR-RCER to KVK-Buxar and proposed to hold inquiry under Rule 14 of Rules 1965.

4. It is also the case of the applicant that in arbitrary manner with no statutory power to exercise for transfer, posting and holding departmental inquiry and transfer order dated 10.06.2022 (Annexure-P-VII) and relieving on same day is illegal. Hence, applicant seeking relief to join at original place of posting at ICAR-RCER, and impugned action of transfer vide order dated 10.06.2022 Annexure P/VII is not sustainable in eyes of law. So also applicant calling in question, assailing order dated 4^th August, 2022 (Annexure-P-1), whereby decision has been taken to hold disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and disciplinary authority has been appointed under Rule 12(2) of Rules, 1965 and Secretary, ICAR in exercise of power conferred by President, ICAR vide Council’s order dated 08.02.2008 by the President appointed disciplinary authority. The further averments that transfer order dated 10^th June, 2022 transferring applicant from ICAR to KVK Buxar (Annexure P/VII) is bad in law as well as order dated 04.08.2022 impugned as contained in Annexure P-1 is also deserves to be quashed as more than two years have elapsed since initiation of disciplinary proceedings vide impugned Office Order dated 04.08.2022 (Annexure P/1) whereas Sub-Rule 24 of Rule 14 of Rules 1965 stipulates inquiry to be concluded within six months and consequently entire enquiry deserves to be quashed.

ARGUMENTS

5. Shri Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for applicant contended that Acting Director issued transfer order dated 10.06.2022 (Annexure P- VII) and transferred applicant from ICAR RCER to KVK, Buxar and applicant deserves to be posted at original place of posting at ICAR, RCER, instead of at KVK, Buxar. So also enquiry initiated by impugned order dated 04.08.2022 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be quashed as Acting director has been appointed as Disciplinary Authority under Rule 12 (2) of Rules 1965 and not competent enquiry within six months as per sub-rule (24) of Rule 14 of Rules 1965.

6. Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11804

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALAjay Pratap Singh, JRakesh Mani – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application|OA No. 529 of 2022

Original Application before Administrative Tribunal dismissed at admission for being barred by one-year limitation under Section 21 AT Act without condonation application or sufficient cause shown for two-year delay.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ajay Pratap Singh, J
Rakesh Mani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application|OA No. 529 of 2022