Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10058
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, J, RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, A
S. Harcharn Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 1230/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. A.K. Premi
For the Respondents: Sh. A.K. Sharma
The Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over cases where applicants do not hold civil posts under the Union of India.
Headnote:(A) Jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal - Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application if the applicant is not holding a civil post under the Union of India, as established by High Court precedent (Paras 4, 5).
(B) Jurisdictional issues must not pivot on the stage of inquiry, maintaining uniform jurisdictional authority (Paras 10, 11).
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenged the relieving order, but jurisdictional objections were raised citing prior judgments.
Findings of Court:
Applicant was deemed not to hold a civil post, thus Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.
Issues: Determination of jurisdiction based on the nature of the applicant's post.
Ratio Decidendi: High Court decisions affirm that jurisdiction does not shift based on inquiry stages.
Result: O.A. dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tribunal lacks jurisdiction over non-civil post applicants. (Para 1) |
| 2. the application is dismissed due to the jurisdictional lack. (Para 2 , 3) |
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. Ld. counsel for the respondents has placed on record order passed by CAT Principal Bench in OA No. 1230/2024 dated 22.03.2025. The same is taken on record. Relevant portion of the order reads as under:
“ 4. However, before we go into the merit, the issue arises as to whether the issue raised in the captioned O.A. falls under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Such issue is no more resintegra keeping in view the order/judgment dated 11.05.2021 of a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 3583/2021 and C.M. No. 10856/2021 titled Union of India Vs. Chikkam Vijay Mohan . In the said case, respondent was a Member of Judicial Service of State of Haryana and he was appointed as Presiding Officer of DRT, Nagpur. He approached this Tribunal challenging the relieving order dated 12.02.2020. An objection was raised about the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain the O.A. by placing reliance on the judgment dated 26.04.2007 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India and others Vs. Shiv Charan Verma in W.P.(C) No. 15754/2006. The Tribunal granted interim relief vide order dated 18.03.2020 which was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P. (C) No. 3583/2021 (Supra). The Hon'ble High Court vide paras 10 and 11 of the order/judgment dated 11.05.2021 under reference in the case of Chikkam Vijay Mohan held as under:-
"10. It was put to the senior counsel for the respondent that if the inquiry against the P.O. of a DRT is to be conducted by a Judge of the High Court, would CAT still have jurisdiction in matters concerning the said inquiry. The senior counsel for the respondent fairly agrees that in such eventuality the jurisdiction would lie with the High Court and not with CAT, in view of the fact that High Court exercises jurisdiction over CAT under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It that be so, it cannot be that depending upon the stage of inquiry, the jurisdiction would lie with CAT or with High Court. If post inquiry, the jurisdiction would be that of the High Court, it cannot be argued that pre inquiry, the jurisdiction would be that of CAT. There cannot be different forums depending upon different stages of disciplinary proceedings.
11. In the light of the discussion above, the P.O., DRT cannot be said to be holding a civil post under the Union and therefore, CAT did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by CAT is set aside. However, the respondent would be free to take any such remedies that may be available to him in law."
5. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Chikkam Vijay Mohan (Supra), we are of the considered view that applicant cannot be said to be holding a Civil Post under Union of India and, therefore, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A.”
2. In view of the above, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present OA.
3. Accordingly, the present OA is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Associated MAs shall stand disposed of accordingly.
4. The applicant is at liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate forum/court.
