Ramesh Kumar Jha v. The Union Of India

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 2 17-01-2012 Heard the parties.

Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 26.8.2011 whereby in a pending Original Application bearing No.15 of 2011 Patna High Court CWJC No.18986 of 2011 (2) dt.17-01-2012 a Miscellaneous Application bearing No.200 of 2011 has been rejected.

At present stage, the Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the case and, therefore, it is not necessary to take notice of the facts in detail. It is sufficient to indicate that petitioner has preferred the OA in question against a charge memo dated

30.9.2010 issued against the writ petitioner. On 12.1.2011 counsel for the applicant was heard in respect of the OA and the Tribunal ordered to issue notice to the respondents and permitted Senior Standing Counsel for the department to accept notice on behalf of the respondents and further directed to file reply within four weeks so that rejoinder, if any, could be filed within another week‟s time. The matter was to be listed again on 17.3.2011 before the Deputy Registrar for completion of pleadings. That order dated 12.1.2011 is available as Annexure-2 to the writ application.

Thereafter, the MA in question was filed for stay of the departmental inquiry initiated by Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Samastipur. An issue was raised on behalf of the petitioner that the pending departmental proceeding should be treated to have abated in terms of Section 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) because order dated 12.1.2011 would amount Patna High Court CWJC No.18986 of 2011 (2) dt.17-01-2012 “Admission” of the OA and as a necessary consequence, the connected disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioner stood abated and save as otherwise directed by the Tribunal, no appeal or representation in relation to such matter shall thereafter be entertained under the rules.

The learned Tribunal has held that the order passed on

12.1.2011 would not amount to an order admitting the OA in accordance with Section 19 (3) of the Act. According to the Tribunal, the notice on respondents was issued only for further inquiry and only if satisfied after such inquiry, the Tribunal may decide to admit the application or may dispose it of summarily. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is not acceptable because if the same is accepted, it would amount to holding that whenever for the purposes of inquiry or for knowing the stand of the other side, the Tribunal decides to issue notices it would amount to admission of the Original Application leading to abatement for the purposes mentioned in Section 19 (4) of the Act. The word „inquiry‟ used in Section 19 (3) of the Act is of significance and implies that the Tribunal before deciding to admit the matter may issue notice for the purposes of inquiring into the merits of the case and thereafter it may admit application or may dispose of it summarily. The aforesaid construction will advance Patna High Court CWJC No.18986 of 2011 (2) dt.17-01-2012 the cause of justice because no interim order should harm other party unless the Tribunal passes a specific interim order before issuing notice. The other provisions of the Act or Rules framed thereunder do not come in the way of interpretation indicated above or with the views of the learned Tribunal.

Hence, we find ourselves in agreement with the views of the Tribunal. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. It is made clear that if the petitioner is suffering any kind of injury on account of lack of suitable interim orders, he may approach the Tribunal for passing suitable interim order. Such prayer, however, shall be considered on merits and in accordance with law. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)