Gujarat High Court: In a civil petition challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (‘CAT’), wherein former IPS officer Rajnish Rai’s (‘petitioner’) application challenging the show cause notice was dismissed. The Division Bench of Vipul M. Pancholi and Hasmukh D. Suthar, JJ., dismissed the petition and said that CAT, Ahmedabad did not commit any error while dismissing the original application and review application filed by the petitioner.
Background
The petitioner belonged to 1992 batch of the Indian Police Service (‘IPS’). While he was posted as the IG, NES, CRPF, Shillong, on 30.03.2017, the officer concerned informed the petitioner that in the night on 29/30-03-2017, two persons purported to be of the NDFB(S) cadre were killed near village Simlaiguri, District Chirang, Assam in an alleged fake encounter. He, therefore, duly informed about the joint operation to ADJ, NE Zone, CRPF, Guwahati and to the other competent authority as per the practice.
The petitioner was, transferred from Shillong to Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner, thereafter, came to know about the preliminary inquiry initiated against him. Therefore, he, filed an application before the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi challenging his transfer and initiation of preliminary inquiry against him in the matter of fake encounter. On 09.08.2017, the CAT, Principal Bench dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner, filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the said proceedings, a show cause notice dated 28.12.2021 was served to the petitioner. The Delhi High Court, ultimately, disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
Later, the petitioner filed an application in 2023 before the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench and challenged the said show cause notice issued on 28-12-2021. The CAT, Ahmedabad Bench dismissed the said application on 16.02.2023. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Review Application before the CAT, Ahmedabad, which was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the order dated 16-02-2023 and prayed for the Court to declare that the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench has jurisdiction to hear and decide the original application filed before it and direct the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench to hear and dispose of the said application on merits.
Issue
Whether the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench has jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application filed by the petitioner or not?
The Court noted the facts of the petitioner’s case and viewed that when the Delhi High Court had granted permission to the petitioner to approach before the CAT, the petitioner was required to file original application against the issuance of show cause notice dated 28.12.2021 before the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. However, the petitioner filed an application before the CAT, Ahmedabad.
The Court perused the rule 6(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (the ‘Rules of 1987′), and said that the rule specifically provides that the persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at their 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. Further, the Court said that in the present case, the petitioner was not retired from service, nor were his services terminated. Thus, it was not a case of deemed resignation. Therefore, rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1987 would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner.
The Court also said that the CAT, Ahmedabad, did not have jurisdiction under rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1987, as the show cause notice was issued from New Delhi. Further, the Court said that merely because show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, it cannot be presumed that legal right of the petitioner has been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondents because of the issuance of the said show cause notice.
The Court said that the CAT, Ahmedabad, had rightly rejected the review application of the petitioner on the ground that there was no apparent error on the face of the record. The Court also said that the CAT, Ahmedabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the original application filed by the petitioner. Thus, the CAT did not commit any error while dismissing the original application and review application filed by the petitioner.
[Rajnish Kumar Rai, IPS (Retd.) V. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 1129, Decided on 01-05-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Advocate Utkarsh J Dave; Advocate Rahul Sharma
For the respondent: Devang Vyas, Additional Solicitor General; Advocate Harsheel D Shukla
