Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1507 (RAJ)

Sukhdeo Singh v. State Form Corporation of India

2005-05-19

R.P.VYAS

body2005
Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the order dated 23.01.2001 may be recalled and the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be heard on merits. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2820/1992 assailing therein the validity of order dated 04.09.1991 whereby the petitioners services were terminated by the respondents pursuant to disciplinary enquiry. 3. The writ petition came up for consideration before this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petition by relying upon a Judgment reported in 1999 (2) RLW 1319, wherein this Court has taken a view that for the State Employees remedy of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal is available and as such they should exhaust the alternative remedy before approaching this Court. 4. It has also been averred in the review petition that the petitioner when approached the Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, he could not trace out the file. The petitioner has also tried to locate his file in Central Industrial Tribunal, however, he could not trace out the same there too. 5. In this review petition, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case the remedy of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal is not available to the petitioner on account of the fact that he is an employee in a company which is a Central Government undertaking, whereas the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction only in regard to the employees of the State Government. It has also been alleged that the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matters pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondents has not contoverted this aspect of the matter. However, the only submission raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing departmental appeal and thus, the review petition be dismissed and the petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy of departmental appeal. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and scanned and examined the material on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of Central Government Undertaking, whereas, the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction only in regard to employees of the State Government. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and scanned and examined the material on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of Central Government Undertaking, whereas, the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction only in regard to employees of the State Government. Thus, the petitioner has no alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and he cannot be relegated to the alternative remedy before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. Hence, there is an error apparent on the face of record. 9. That apart the services of the petitioner were terminated pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of services matter only. The term "Service matter" has been defined in Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act which provides that the matter relating to salary, pension and allowance otherwise than penalty shall be subjected to the jurisdiction of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. In the present case, the services of the petitioner have been terminated after disciplinary enquiry as a penalty and, therefore, also, the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the matter. 10. So far as the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent regarding availability of alternative remedy by way of departmental appeal is concerned, it is open for the respondents to raise this objection at the time of hearing of the writ petitions. This question cannot be agitated at this stage, when only the review petition is being decided that too on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and not other remedy. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant review petition is allowed. The order dated 23.01.2001 passed by this Court is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number. Office to proceed.