Sanjeev Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Purushottam Thakur Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No v. 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Communication Department Of Posts, Dak
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10005 of 2025 Sanjeev Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Purushottam Thakur Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Village Bijabhath, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Communication Department Of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001 2 - Sr. Superintendent Of Post, Durg Division Civic Center, Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Inspector Of Post Offices, Bemetara Sub Divison, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ankush Borkar, Advocate Respondent For No. 1/U.O.I. : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Government Counsel For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 10.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to stay the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner vide memo dated 05.06.2025 under Rule 10B of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 until final disposal of Criminal Case No. 208 of 2025 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.). BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.09.12 12:35:25 +0530 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action on the 2 part of respondent authorities is bad, illegal and contrary to law because the trial of a case in two remedies simultaneously in the same offence is in violation of settled principles and guidelines issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. He would further submit that the departmental enquiry is based on the same set of facts, evidence and witnesses as the criminal case and proceeding with it concurrently risks inconsistent findings, which may prejudice the petitioner’s defense and lead to a miscarriage of justice. He would further submit that initiation of the departmental enquiry during the pendency of the criminal trial is an abuse of process and authority by the respondent authorities, as it undermines the petitioner’s ability to defend himself effectively in both proceedings. To substantiate his submission he would refer judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and also the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in case of Narad Tamrakar Vs. Union of India in WP(S) No. 2653 of 2021 dated 21.06.2021. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for UOI would submit that the petitioner is employed in Postal Department, as such, this Court has no jurisdiction and Government of India has issued a notification confirming jurisdiction to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as such this petition is not maintainable before the Court. He would further submit that as per Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it is a service dispute and as per Section 14 of the Act Tribunals have been constituted by the Central Government who has exclusive 3 jurisdiction of deciding the grievance of Central Government Employee
Decision
and would pray for rejection of the writ petition. 4. To decide the issue raised in this petition, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 3(q) and Section 14 of the Act of 1985 which is extracted below: “Section 3(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 other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation 5 [or society] owned or controlled by the Government, as respects— (i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation; (iii) leave of any kind; (iv) disciplinary matters; or (v) any other matter whatsoever; 14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal— (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court ) in relation to — (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All - India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian; (b) all service matters concerning — (i) a member of any All-India Service; or (ii) a person [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or (iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence, 4 and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation [or society] owned or controlled by the Government; (c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation [or society] or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment. [Explanation.— For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to “Union”in this sub-section shall be construed as including references also to a Union territory.] (2) The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations [or societies] owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or to her authority or corporation [or society] controlled or owned by a State Government: Provided that if the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or corporations [or societies]. (3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any local or other authority or corporation [or society], all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all courts (except the Supreme Court 2***) in relation to— and matters concerning (a) recruitment, recruitment, to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation [or society]; and (b) all service matters concerning a person [other than a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub - section (1)] appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or 5 other authority or corporation [or society] and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such affairs.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently oppose the submission and would submit that since the right of the petitioner is being adversely affected therefore, this Court can entertain the writ 6. 7. petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has alternate remedy available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, therefore, I am of the view that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly it is dismissed. 8. In light of the above legal position and also considering that the matter relates to employee of the Postal Department for which jurisdiction has been conferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal to hear the grievance of the petitioner as such liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the concerned tribunal for redressing his grievances. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is dismissed. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merit of the case, it is left open and the tribunal will decide the case in accordance with law on the basis of material placed before it. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika