STATE OF U P Vs. VIJAY VARSHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. State Government has filed this writ petition challenging the order impugned dated 18th February, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 502 of 2007 (Vijay Varshney Vs. The Union of India and others) on the ground that the dispute relates to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter in short called as the 'act, 1988') and filing of the first information report (hereinafter in short called as 'f. I. R. ') in consequence thereof. Hence, consideration of the cause by the Central Administrative Tribunal as per the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter in short called as the 'act, 1985') is beyond its competency.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondents, the proceeding/s may be of criminal nature in pursuance of filing of F. I. R. but it concerns service of an employee which squarely covers under Section 14 of the Act, 1985. Section 14 of the Act, 1985 speaks about the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of the 'recruitment and matters concerning recruitment' and 'all service matters'. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is not only confined to recruitment and all service matters but also concerning to recruitment which is, otherwise, wide in nature.

(3.) IT is true to say that the power of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is enormous in nature, which has been curtailed by virtue of Article 323-A of the Constitution and given to the Central Administrative Tribunal, but sky is not the limit to construe as such. As the power is high, preservation of the power is higher than that. Unnecessarily the jurisdiction of the tribunal can not be widened to interfere with it. The Central Administrative Tribunal can not assume its competency to frustrate the action, if any, under the later Act i. e. the Act, 1988. Section 14 of the earlier Act i. e. Act, 1985 is independent of such Act. Moreover, when later Act was implemented, the legislature was fully cautious about the applicability of the Act, 1985. Hence, intention of the legislature of the subsequent Act can not be frustrated in the manner as proposed under the order impugned. Moreover, any order to be passed by the Court under the Act, 1988 is appealable and revisable as per the power conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High Court. Therefore, such power can not be regulated by the Central Administrative Tribunal by the Act, 1985.