Sushil Kumar Tailor vs M/o Railways on 13 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:- “8(i). quash and set aside the order dated 9/12/2016 passed by the Revisional Authority Chief Commercial Manager, North Western Railway maintaining the order of the Appellate Authority Additional Divisional Rail Manager, Northern Western Railway,

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

2 OA No.343/2017

Ajmer dated 30.04.2015 and the order of the Disciplinary Authority-Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Western Railway, Ajmer dated 23.12.2014 by which penalty has been imposed; 8(ii). direct the Respondents to refund the amount which has been deducted from the salary of the Applicants under the above orders with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its deduction till the date of payment to the Applicant; 8(iii). quash and set aside the A.C.Rs of the Applicant filled by the Commercial Department since the Applicant does not work under the Commercial Department; 8(iv). Award costs of this Original Application throughout; 8(v). pass such other and further reliefs to the Applicant as may be deemed just and expedient so as to give full relief to the Applicant.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were not proper as there was a clear inconsistency in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was dated 11.06.2013, whereas, the alleged irregularities were stated to have been noticed during inspection on 09.06.2014, i.e. after the date of the charge-sheet. It was further submitted that the applicant’s duty was only to supervise the sanitation work, which had been given to a contractor. The applicant had repeatedly informed the contractor about the poor sanitation and had also informed the concerned railway authorities and recommended action against the contractor. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the applicant could not be held responsible for the failure of the contractor to maintain cleanliness. 2(a). Learned counsel further submitted that the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities had not properly considered the applicant’s explanation and the documents

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

3 OA No.343/2017

showing that he had taken steps to improve the sanitation. It was also submitted that the applicant had a satisfactory service record and there was no specific finding showing that he had failed to perform his supervisory duties. The Revisional Authority also rejected the revision by a non-speaking order without properly dealing with the grounds raised by the applicant. On these grounds, learned counsel submitted that the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment was not justified and deserved to be set aside.

3. Per contra, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It was submitted that, in terms of Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, an Original Application is required to be filed before the Bench within whose jurisdiction the applicant is posted for the time being. According to the respondents, the applicant was initially appointed in Jaipur Division but was subsequently posted in Ajmer Division under the Station Superintendent, Bhilwara. The disciplinary proceedings arose out of the alleged irregularities at Bhilwara Railway Station. It was, therefore, submitted that the cause of action arose within Ajmer Division and that this Bench had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Original Application. 3(a). The respondents have also submitted that the applicant has incorrectly combined two separate disciplinary

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

4 OA No.343/2017

proceedings and their respective penalties. According to them, the charge memorandum dated 11.06.2013 resulted in an order dated 09.07.2014 imposing stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect, which was subsequently reduced by the appellate authority to stoppage of one annual increment for one year without future effect. Thereafter, a separate charge memorandum dated 04.11.2014 was issued, which resulted in the penalty order dated 23.12.2014 imposing stoppage of one annual increment for one year without future effect. The said penalty was upheld in appeal by order dated 30.04.2015 and in revision by order dated 09.12.2016. 3(b). The respondents have further submitted that the Original Application was also defective on account of misjoinder of causes of action, particularly as the applicant has challenged the alleged ACR along with the disciplinary proceedings, though the two matters have no connection. On merits, the respondents contend that the penalty imposed pursuant to the charge memorandum dated 04.11.2014 was passed after following the prescribed procedure and after considering the applicant's explanation.

The Appellate Authority, by order dated 30.04.2015, found no justification to interfere with the penalty, and the revision petition was also rejected by order dated 09.12.2016. It was, therefore, submitted that the applicant had failed to point out any illegality or procedural irregularity in the disciplinary orders and that

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

5 OA No.343/2017

merely because a penalty has been imposed does not provide a ground for interference by the Tribunal. The respondents accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present Original Application.

4. Heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings, documents and material available on record.

5. We have considered the rival submissions. Since a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has been raised, the same is required to be considered first. Rule 6(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 provides that an application shall ordinarily be filed before 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. The relevant provision reads as under: “6. Place of filing applications.—(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), 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.”

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

6 OA No.343/2017

6. In the present case, the applicant was initially appointed in Jaipur Division but was subsequently posted in Ajmer Division under the Station Superintendent, Bhilwara. The disciplinary proceedings in question arose out of the alleged irregularities at Bhilwara Railway Station and, related to the discharge of the Applicant’s duties at the said station. Thus, the facts giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings arose at Bhilwara in Ajmer Division.

7. The mere fact that the applicant was initially appointed in Jaipur Division would not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Bench. The relevant consideration under Rule 6(1) is the applicant’s posting for the time being or the place where the cause of action, wholly or partly, arose. In the present case, the disciplinary action was initiated on account of the alleged irregularities at Bhilwara Station and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings, including the appellate and revisional proceedings, arose from the said action. The substantive cause of action, therefore, arose within Ajmer Division.

8. The applicant has not shown any part of the cause of action relating to the impugned disciplinary action to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. The fact that the revisional order dated 09.12.2016 was passed by the Headquarters / Competent Authority of the North Western Railway also does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction upon

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

7 OA No.343/2017

this Bench when the underlying disciplinary action arose from the Applicant’s posting and duties at Bhilwara, Ajmer Division.

9. In view of the above discussion, we find substance in the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents. This Bench does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Original Application in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Since the Original Application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction itself, we do not consider it necessary to examine the rival contentions on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings, including the alleged discrepancy in the dates of the charge-sheet and inspection, the applicant’s supervisory role, the validity of the penalty, or the challenge to the ACR.

10. Consequently, the Original Application is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s challenge to the disciplinary proceedings or the penalty imposed upon him. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.

(Lok Ranjan)

(Ranjana Shahi) Member (A)

Member (J)

kmg*

KHUSHBOO