UNION OF INDIA Vs. R T ADHVARYU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India (Railways) and its officers have preferred this Special Civil Application against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Original Application No.21 of 1992 on 19.12.1997. The question raised before this Court is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the provisions contained in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the Act) on the ground of non-disposal of the appeal finally by the Appellate Authority within a period of six months from the date of preferring an appeal, even if the Tribunal is approached within a period of one year from the expiry of the said period of six months? On the other hand, Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the question raised by the railways is not tenable in view of the provisions contained in Sections 20 and 21 of the said Act.

(2.) It appears that, on 21.11.1990, the Divisional Commercial Superintendent passed an order, namely, removal of the applicant from service by way of penalty. It is not disputed that against the said order, the applicant before the Tribunal, preferred an appeal on 10.12.1990 to the competent authority. The Railway Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Part V provides for appeals. It is not disputed that an appeal was preferred under the provisions contained in Part V and particularly under Rule 80. With a view to see that there is quick disposal of appeals and also with a view to see that persons against whom orders are passed get justice within a reasonable period, the Railway Board on 14.2.1969 by a circular called upon the Appellate Authority hearing the appeals against the order of disciplinary authority to dispose of the appeals promptly and within a reasonable time. It was also indicated that, if appeal or application cannot be disposed of within a month of its submission, an acknowledgment or an interim reply should be sent to the individual within a month. This indicates that the Railway Board in 1969 directed the officers concerned to dispose of the appeals at the earliest. This is merely a letter addressed to the authorities hearing the appeals. It has no statutory force. However, it indicates the anxiety on the part of the administration to see that the appeals which are preferred are disposed of at the earliest. The question is whether the application preferred before the Tribunal can be said to be maintainable or not if in a case the applicant had already approached the Appellate Authority to redress the grievances. For that question one has to refer relevant parts of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, which read as under:

(3.) Reading Section 20 it appears that the Tribunal should not, ordinarily, admit an application unless the applicant has availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances. Learned advocate Mr.Sheth appearing for the petitioners submitted that, as the applicant had already preferred an appeal, the Tribunal ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction till the appeal is disposed of. Reading clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20, it is clear that, if the appellate authority has not disposed of the appeal within a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred, then, the person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules.