SAJAL CHAKRABORTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2, 3 and 4. Petitioner is a member of Indian Administrative Service of Bihar Cadre. While he was posted as Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, District at Chaibasa, he had to go on leave. He was made accused in R.C. Case No. 20(A) of 1996 and two other cases and was declared absconder by Central Bureau of Investigation, Animal Husbandry Unit, Patna. On 15.12.1997 petitioner was suspended under Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) with effect from 11.6.1997 on account of his unauthorised absence and also for being declared absconder by the CBI. Government of India as well as Government of Jharkhand sanctioned prosecution against him respectively under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 9.3.1998 he was arrested in connection with R.C. Case No. 20(A) of 1996 and was released on bail on 18.9.1999. The Review Committee under Rule 8(b) of the Rules under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand from time to time reviewed petitioners suspension on 27.7.2001, 5.3.2002 and 1.11.2002 and recommended the State Government to keep him under suspension for further period and consequently the State Government issued order dated 14.11.2002, Annexure -N to the counter affidavit, for continuance of petitioners suspension. In all the three cases against him charge -sheet have been filed and cognizance have also been taken.

(2.) PETITIONER filed O.A. No. 713 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) challenging order of his suspension and particularly for its continuance for such long time and made prayer for its quashing and giving consequential benefits to him for the period during which he was placed under suspension. The tribunal by impugned order dated 16th September, 2002, was pleased to dispose of the same without entering into merits of the case or expressing any view thereon. It has been observed that without exhausting all the remedies available under the relevant Service Rules, at this stage O.A, was not maintainable and petitioner may seek remedy under the provision of Part V of the Rules taking all the points in the Memorandum of Appeal within reasonable time. If such Appeal under Rule 28 is filed, the appellate authority was directed to consider condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal, relaxing the time limit because petitioner in good faith filed O.A. in the Tribunal and was pursing his case before a wrong forum. After disposal of Appeal and after exhausting all other remedies, if advised, petitioner was also given liberty to move the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Act.

(3.) IT is true that the word "ordinarily" in the context means generally, but not always or in all cases. However, normally the rule is that applicant should first avail the departmental or other prescribed remedy open to him before applying to the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Act. Looking to the special circumstance of the case or any emergent situation or any extra ordinary nature of action to be taken under the Disciplinary rule against the employee concerned, application under Section 19 of the Act can be admitted without even exhausting other remedies and, therefore, Section 20 does not lay down absolute bar to the admission of the application under Section 19 without exhausting alternative remedies, which are otherwise available. So there can be exception in special circumstances and the Tribunal on being satisfied of the reasons stated by the applicant for not having exhausted his departmental remedies, in its discretion, may admit such application. But in normal course, an applicant must exhaust departmental remedies before filing application under Section 19 of the Act and even aggrieved by an order of suspension, without preferring appeal available to him under the Disciplinary Rules an employee is not justified in approaching the Tribunal as he has not exhausted the alternative remedy available to him by way of appeal etc. as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act.