MACHINDRA J BAMNE vs LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (MS) on 2 November 2026

1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. Central Board of Trustees, Through its Chairman, Ministry of Labour & Employment, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

3. Central PF Commissioner & CEO, Central Board of Trustees (EPFO), 14, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066.

4. Regional PF Commissioner – I, Kandivali (East), 4th to 7th Floors, MTNL Telephone

Munarshi

2 RA No. 23/2025 in OA No. 446-2024

Exchange bldg., Dr.B.R.A. Road, Sector 8, Charkop Market, Boraspada Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067.

5. Regional PF Commissioner-I,

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,

P.B. No. 572, Highlands,

Silva Cross Road, Attavar,

Mangaluru, Karnataka 575 002.

… Respondents

ORDER BY CIRCULATION Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

The applicant has filed this review application for reviewing the Order dated 13th August, 2024 in OA No. 446/2024 whereby the OA has been dismissed.

2. The applicant had filed this OA challenging the transfer order dated 23rd November, 2022 as well as the chargesheet dated 20th February, 2023. When the matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 07th May, 2024, it was observed that the petitioner is challenging the transfer order dated 23rd November, 2022 as well as the chargesheet dated 20th February, 2023. The cause of action for these two orders are different and therefore, it cannot be clubbed in one OA in terms of Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and, therefore, the petitioner was

Munarshi

3 RA No. 23/2025 in OA No. 446-2024

allowed to withdraw the prayer of transfer and file the separate original application and accordingly, the prayer was withdrawn. Thereafter, the OA was restricted to the extent of challenge to the chargesheet dated 20th February, 2023. The matter came up for hearing on 13th August, 2024. This Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the OA vide Order dated 13th August, 2024.

3. According to the applicant, there is an error apparent on the face of the record that the Tribunal had observed in Para 1 that he is challenging the Transfer Order on the ground that the chargesheet is issued without jurisdiction and, therefore, the applicant cannot be transferred on that ground, meaning thereby the Tribunal had decided the said OA, as if the said OA pertains to the challenge to the Transfer Order dated 23rd November, 2022. However, so far as challenge to the Transfer Order is concerned, the same was already withdrawn vide order dated 07th May, 2024 and the OA was in respect of the challenge to the chargesheet dated 20th February, 2023. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

Munarshi

4 RA No. 23/2025 in OA No. 446-2024

4. The Tribunal had observed that OA No. 312/2024 wherein the chargesheet dated 24th January, 2024 was challenged on the ground that it was not issued by the Appointing Authority of the petitioner. In that OA also, the petitioner has filed Review Petition simultaneously and, therefore, that order is also required to be revoked.

5. The chargesheet is issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who is stated to be the Disciplinary Authority in case of the petitioner as per EPF (Offices & Employees Conditions of Services) Regulations 2008. However, the said Regulations were amended subsequently which is required to be considered by the Tribunal and as per the amended provision, the Disciplinary Authority is not the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner but ACC. As per the amended rules, the cadre controlling authority is ACC. Thus, the chargesheet is to be issued only by the ACC and not the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

6. The applicant contends that on all these grounds, the review needs to be allowed and matter needs to be heard afresh. This OA was decided vide Order dated 13th August,

Munarshi

5 RA No. 23/2025 in OA No. 446-2024

2024. While deciding this OA, we made following observations:- “ We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed as LDC from sport quota by the order dated 26th June, 2002. The applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 18th August, 2022 and after suspension, he was transferred out of his cadre and out of the Maharashtra Region and his headquarter was kept at Mangaluru, Karnataka vide order dated 23th November, 2022. The respondent No.5 issued a charge memorandum to the applicant vide order dated 20th February, 2023. Consequent upon which the applicant was transferred to Mangaluru, Karnataka. The applicant is challenging this order of transfer on the ground that the issuance of chargesheet itself is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the applicant cannot be transferred on that count.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge memorandum issued by respondent No.5 is without jurisdiction as the entire cause of action had arisen at Mumbai. Since charge memorandum itself is without jurisdiction, the transfer also is without jurisdiction and, therefore, it should be set aside.

4. In OA No.312/2024, the applicant had challenged the issuance of charge memorandum on the ground that it was not issued by the appointing authority of the applicant. While delivering the judgment, this contention of the applicant was rejected and it was held that the respondent No.5 had the authority to issue the chargesheet. Since the chargesheet has been issued consequent upon which the applicant has been transferred, we do not find any merit in this application. No other ground has been raised in this OA.”

7. It is true that the application was decided as if the transfer was being challenged. However, the core issue was whether the charge memorandum was issued by the appointing authority of the applicant or not and to that

Munarshi

6 RA No. 23/2025 in OA No. 446-2024

extent, we have held that the applicant has challenged the issuance of charge memorandum in OA No. 312/2024 on the ground that it was not issued by the appointing authority of the applicant. While delivering the judgment, this contention of the applicant was rejected and it was held that the respondent no. 5 had the authority to issue chargesheet. In these circumstances, the core issue involved in the OA was decided by us after giving hearing to both the parties. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

8. So far as amendment is concerned, it is not the case of the applicant that he was not aware of the amendment being carried out. Even otherwise, ignorance of law is not a ground for review. In these circumstances, we do not find that it is a case for review. Hence, Review Application is dismissed by way of circulation.

(Shri Krishna)

(Justice M.G. Sewlikar) Member (A)

Member (J)

nk.

Munarshi