Central Administrative Tribunal - ChandigarhUnknown vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary To ... on 3 August, 2012CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH

O.A. No.108/HR/12

Chandigarh, this the 3rd day of August, 2012


CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
                 HONBLE MR.RANBIR SINGH , MEMBER(A)


Sube Ram, Ex GDS BPM Asakhera BO under Sirsa HO in Hisar Division, Hisar, District Hisar.

APPLICANT

BY ADVOCATE: NONE.

VERSUS

1. Union of india through its Secretary to Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle,Ambala.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Hisar Division, Hisar.



RESPONDENTS


BY ADVOCATE: SH.  DEEPAK AGNIHOTRI
ORDER (ORAL)HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-1.	The applicant joined services of the respondents department as Extra Departmental Runner and became Branch Post Master in 2002.  On account of a dereliction in the matter of making an entry qua deposit of certain amount in a saving bank account, his removal of service was ordered by the disciplinary authority, following his indictment in an enquiry held in the domestic dispensation.  An appeal filed by him was disposed of by the Appellate Authority as time-barred (AnnexureA-3).3.	The applicant has applied for the quashment of the order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure A-1) granted by the Disciplinary Authority and also the order dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure A-3) granted by the Appellate Authority.4.	At the motion hearing, the plea raised was that the dismissal of the appeal filed by the applicant as time-barred was factually inaccurate as the appeal came to be filed in time.5.	The learned Sr. CGSC appearing on behalf of the respondents raises a preliminary objection with regard to the very maintainability of this OA on the premise that the applicant herein had not filed the remedy of revision (conceptualized under Rule 19 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.6.	We find that the plea raised on behalf of the respondents deserves acceptance.  There is not even an averment in the course of the OA that the applicant had filed a revision in terms of Rule 19 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.  A perusal of this Rule would falsify the averment made in the course of the OA that remedy by way of revision is not available to the applicant. The provisions ofCentral Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, do not admit of any ambiguity while providing that an OA would be competent only if an applicant has exhausted all the remedies available to him in the departmental dispensation.7.	In the light thereof, we would dismiss this OA as pre-mature.  The applicant may file a revision petition before the competent authority within two months from today.  On the filing of the revision petition, the Revisional Authority  would take a decision in the context within two months from the date of filing of the same.8.	Having said that on merits, we would also like to observe that non-consideration of an appeal or revision by the competent authority in the departmental dispensation on the premise of it being time-barred, almost amounts to denial of justice.  This would apply, with greater vigour to an Appellate Authority.  The filing of the plea with the appellate authority would be the first forum before which the grievance against the view obtained by the Disciplinary Authority would be raised.  A little more compassionate attitude would be expected on the part of an Appellate Authority.  We would expect the Revisional Authority to keep our sentiments in view while disposing of the revision.9.	Disposed of accordingly.(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND)
                                                                         MEMBER(J)


                                                                        
(RANBIR SINGH)
                                                                          MEMBER(A)
Dated:    August 3rd, 2012

ND*1OA No.108/HR/12