High CourtsDivision Bench(2007) 10 PAT CK 0050

Nripendra Kumar Verma @ N.K. Verma vs Union of India and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 31 October 2007 · Citation: (2008) 1 PLJR 265

HON’BLE JUDGES
Narayan Roy, Acting C.J. · Madhavendra Saran, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CWJC No. 3087 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 313 words
1.

Heard Dr. S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ravis for the respondents. This writ application is directed against the order dated 10th January, 2007 whereby and whereunder the O.A. application filed by the petitioner against the order of departmental action was dismissed.

2.

It appears that the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally and on conclusion of the departmental proceeding certain punishment was imposed upon him. He challenged the order of punishment before the CAT. His application earlier filed was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter.

3.

The authorities on reconsideration of the matter again held him guilty and inflicted the punishment which again was challenged before the CAT without filing statutory appeal against the disciplinary action. The CAT on appreciation of facts held that the O.A. application was not maintainable before it inasmuch as that the remedy of statutory appeal was not availed and accordingly took a lenient view of the matter and disposed of the O.A. application with a direction that this application may be treated as a memo of appeal which would be duly considered by the appellate authority by giving an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner despite order passed by the CAT again moved this Court by this application.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the departmental appeal was not an efficacious remedy, therefore, this application has been filed in this Court.

5.

Against any departmental action if statute provides for statutory appeal, that must be availed. Statutory provision cannot be by-passed by rushing to this Court making out a jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The view taken by the CAT in this view of the matter, is wholly in consonance with law and in our opinion should not be interfered with. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.