PRASANNA KUMAR DASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No.569 of 2005 dismissing the same as not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction. The reason assigned by the Tribunal to come to the aforesaid conclusion is that all the respondents before it are located at New Delhi and, as disclosed by the applicant, he was working as Survey of Works (C), Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio, Film Division Complex, 24 - Peddar Road, Mumbai and the O.A. was filed being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority (President of India) dated 04.04.2005, received by the petitioner on 05.05.2005.

(2.) IT was averred by the petitioner in the O.A. that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is the outcome of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him while he was posted as Executive Engineer, Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio, Bhubaneswar. On the query of the Tribunal, it was apprised by the petitioner that the O.A. was filed before that Bench on the ground that charge memo was served on him when he was posted at Bhubaneswar and the enquiry was also carried out till its completion when he was posted at Bhubaneswar. Therefore, a part of the cause of action had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench. The Tribunal has, however, dismissed the O.A. on the ground that the petitioner was not residing within Orissa and was residing at Mumbai at the time of filing of the O.A. In this writ petition, the petitioner has not only challenged the order of the Tribunal as well as that of the disciplinary authority imposing penalty on him, but also has prayed for quashing of the entire disciplinary proceeding. The charge memo is a part of the disciplinary proceeding, quashing of which is sought.

(3.) IN Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, it has been provided that the application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction either the applicant is posted for the time being or the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen. It has also been provided that such application, with the leave of the Chairman, may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench. In case a person is ceased to be in service, he may file an application at his option with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. Rule 6 is extracted hereunder : - "6. Place of filing application - (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction - (i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or (ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen: Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under Section 25, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub -rule (1) a person who has ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application."