UNION OF INDIA Vs. BIPRAJIT DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent

(2.) The material facts which are necessary for adjudication of the question raised in this appeal are that the respondent Shri Biprajit Duta, while working as Assistant Engineer in North Eastern Frontier Railway was served with a memorandum/charge sheet dated 28.6.97 containing the statement of articles of charge, accompanied by the statement of imputation of misconduct or mibehaviour in support of the articles of charge. After holding a departmental enquiry on the charges served on the respondent, the Enquiry officer submitted the report exonerating the respondent from the charge. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, after service of due notice as required under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Rules, 1968") the disciplinary authority found the respondent guilty of charge and imposed a punishment of penalty or reduction of pay by one stage in the same time scale for a period of one year. This will have the cumulative effect of postponing the respondent's future increments. Aggrieved by the said order of imposition of penalty the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati by moving a petition under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Central Administrative Tribunal entertained the petition and set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty on the respondent. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials placed on record reached to the conclusion that in fact as per the order of the disciplinary authority itself there was no discrepancy between the reasoning and the findings arrived at by the Enquiry officer as well as that by the disciplinary authority. On this finding the Central Administrative Tribunal has set aside the order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment on the respondent. Aggrieved by this order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The only submission made by the learned counsel for the Railways is that on account of the fact that imposition of penalty under Rule 6 of the Rules, 1968 being made appealable under Rule 48, the Administrative Tribunal could not have exercised jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the petition filed by the respondent under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act unless and until the respondent exhausted his remedy provided under the relevant Rules. Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act prohibits the Tribunal ordinarily to admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances. The phraseology used in this section clearly indicates that ordinarily the Tribunal shall not exercise the jurisdiction of entertaining the application under Section 19 unless it is satisfied that alternative remedies available to the claimant have been exhausted by him. The restriction imposed under Section 20 has to be followed and adhered to by the Tribunal ordinarily, but that does not take away the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain an application even if the claimant has not exhausted the remedies provided under the relevant Rules. It is a rule of discretion and the discretion is left to the Tribunal to entertain or not to entertain an application where the remedy as provided under the relevant service Rules. The words used under Section 20 puts a balance on the side of not entertaining an application ordinarily when the alternative remedy is provided under the relevant service rules and it is in the exceptional circumstances of cases the Tribunal can exercise jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 19 although the claimant has not exhausted the remedy provided under the relevant service rules. In the present case exercise of jurisdiction by me Tribunal in entertaining the petition filed by the respondent cannot be said to be an exercise beyond the competence of the Tribunal, when the Tribunal has entertained the petition, and we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, we cannot say that exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal is not a proper exercise of the discretion by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case.