AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings dated 04.02.2022, whereunder the petitioner, who is working as Technical Officer in Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL), Hyderabad, has been transferred to Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), Kaiga District, Uttara Kannada of Karnataka State.
When the present Writ Petition is taken up, though an initial objection was taken by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the petitioner approaching this Court directly without exhausting the remedy available before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’)), on the ground that the ECIL comes under the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, especially under Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, which is one of the organizations included in the list of governmental organizations for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act’), learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had initially approached the Tribunal and as the Tribunal did not entertain the Original Application filed by the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, and therefore, it is only this Court which can exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
On this Court brining to the notice of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as to the judgment of this Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited, Hyderabad represented by its Director (Personnel) V RS Natarajan V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary Labour and Factories, Hyderabad 2012 (6) ALD 697, and the judgment of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD) No.(SR) 29869 of 2020 in the case of A.Maheswari V/s. The Deputy Chief Executive (Administration), Nuclear Fuel Complex, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad CDJ 2020 MHC 4558, learned counsel would submit that the nuclear fuel complex is an independent entity under the Department of Atomic Energy, and as such, the view expressed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court may not strictly be applicable to this case.
However, a reading of the judgment of this Court in Electronics Corporation of India Limited, Hyderabad’’s case (1 supra) indicates that ECIL also comes under Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and once such an organization is covered under Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, it would have to be considered as a Governmental organization conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal under the Act. Once it was held that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the ECIL, the petitioner should be relegated to approach the Tribunal to avail the remedy by filing an Original Application before the Tribunal and not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that instead of the petitioner being relegated to the Tribunal, it would be beneficial to the petitioner, if this Court were to show indulgence in directing the respondents not to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner for not complying with the order dated 04.02.2022, if the petitioner joins at the new place of posting within a time frame that may be specified by this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the disciplinary enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner for not abiding by the order dated 04.02.2022, whereunder 5 employees of various cadres of the respondents - corporation have been transferred to different places and it is only the petitioner who has not joined the service.
Learned counsel for the respondents would however fairly admit to the fact that the petitioner has been running between this Court and the Tribunal during the interregnum, and thus, seeking redressal of his grievance of being transferred to NPCIL, Kaiga, not that as if he has shown disobedience by not joining within time.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be directed to report to the new place of posting as specified in the order dated 04.02.2022 on or before 21.03.2022. Upon the petitioner reporting to the new place of posting in terms of order dated 04.02.022, the respondents shall not take any further disciplinary action against the petitioner for disobedience to the order of transfer.
Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is closed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.