AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
The instant Application (Dy. No.10324/2026) has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“(i)Direct the Respondent to issue the suspension order/ impugned order for maturing the OA No.3214/2026.
(ii)Pass any other relief which Deemed may be fit in the interest of justice.”
2. Factual Matrix
This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant filed OA No.3214/2026, which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.08.2026 being pre-mature. Thereafter the applicant made a representation to the respondents to issue suspension order. As the respondents have not taken any action on the aforesaid representation of the applicant, he has filed the instant OA, seeking the aforementioned relief.
When the matter was taken up for admission/consideration, this Tribunal found that the application is contrary to the legal position contained in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the Rules framed thereunder.
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 states:-
“19. Applications to Tribunals
(1)Subject to the other provisions of this Act a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.
Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, “order” means an order made
(a)by the Government or a local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or by any corporation [or society] owned or controlled by the Government; or
(b)by an officer, committee or other body or agency of the Government or a local or other authority or corporation [or society] referred to in clause (a).
Perusal of the aforementioned application by the present applicant shows that the applicant has not impugned any order by the respondents. Instead, the applicant has impugned order dated 20th August 2026 in OA No. 3214/2026. This is contrary to the aforementioned statutory provisions under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Further Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has specifically mentioned that the applicant before approaching the Tribunal should have availed all remedial administrative avenues available to him. The said Section states:
“20. Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted
(1)A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.
(2)For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances, -
(a)if a final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or
(b)where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.
(3)For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or to the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial.
The present OA is pre-mature as six months have not elapsed since he submitted the representation seeking suspension of himself from the services of the respondents. Seeking suspension from the respondents is not a legal remedy ordinarily prayed for nor granted as a relief. The applicant has failed to mention any representation submitted to the respondents seeking any other genuine grievance relating to his service matter. In absence of such pleadings and substantiation, this Tribunal is unable to appreciate the concerns of the applicant pertaining to his service matters with the respondents.
Perusal of order dated 20.8.2026 in OA No. 3214/2026 shows that the applicant has also approached this Tribunal without any specific order issued by the respondents or any pending representation.
It seems the applicant is unaware of the legal provisions governing filing of applications before this Tribunal. However, ignorance regarding law is not bliss. The applicant should have been more vigilant when his previous frivolous OA was not admitted. The Registry has pointed out the defects in the present application. Despite that, as per record of the Registry, the applicant has requested the Registry to list the matter before an appropriate Bench despite the defects. Hence, it is a deliberate attempt by the applicant to push for a defective application before a Bench.
When the matter was taken up on 30.9.2026, the following has been recorded by the Tribunal:
“The applicant in person was queried as to what is his relief. The applicant in person states that he wanted that an employee who is mentioned in his representation dated 31.08.2026 annexed at Annexure A-2 namely Shyambir Singh, Grade -1, DASS. The query was that what is the relationship of the applicant in person with the employee and how is it permissible under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The applicant in person cannot respond. He was given an option to withdraw the ill drafted OA and file a better drafted one.
2.The applicant in person states that he is ready to face all consequences and let the Tribunal to pass appropriate order.”
It is evident that the application is not legally maintainable. It is also evident that despite the objection by the Registry and query by this Tribunal, the applicant was bent upon insisting on passing appropriate order qua his application. From all these, this Tribunal comes to conclusion that the applicant is bent upon pushing frivolous applications to the Tribunal. This amounts to wastage of precious time of the Bench which could have been utilized by giving opportunity to other deserving litigants to decide their cases.
In view of the above, the present application is dismissed at the admission stage itself being not maintainable under the relevant provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, as quoted hereinabove.
An exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) is also imposed on the applicant to be deposited into the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund for insisting on frivolous litigation. The applicant shall deposit the said cost within eight weeks from pronouncement of this order and shall file the compliance report with the Registry.
No order as to costs.
Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.