Mukesh Kumar Meena v. CIT, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 1656

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Sunday, November 19, 2023

Printed For: Shubhanshi Phogat, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021 SCC OnLine Raj 1656
In the High Court of Rajasthan†

(BEFORE VIJAY BISHNOI AND SUDESH BANSAL, JJ.)
Mukesh Kumar Meena … Petitioner;

Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another …
Respondents.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7434/2021
Decided on October 27, 2021
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhaya Behera Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditya Singhi
(through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari
JUDGMENT/ORDER
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.:— This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved
with the order dated 07.05.2021 passed by learned Chairman, Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby the application P.T./68/2021 preferred
on behalf of respondent-department has been allowed and O.A. No. 14/2021 pending
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench has been ordered to be
transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench with a direction to club
it with O.As. No. 1031/2017 and 1030/2017 pending before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad Bench.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as an Inspector in
Income Tax Department and was posted in the Office of Principal Commissioner of
Income Tax, Aligarh. A memorandum of charge was issued by Principal Commissioner
of Income Tax, Aligarh and based on the said memorandum of charge, a departmental
enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated and Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax, Muzaffarnagar passed an order on 12.09.2019 removing
the petitioner from service.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax, however, when the appeal was not decided, the petitioner preferred
Original Application No. 14/2021 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur
Bench, Jodhpur, under whose jurisdiction, the petitioner is at present residing.
4. The CAT, Jodhpur on 12.01.2021 directed to register the O.A., admitted the
same and issued notices to the respondents. The next date in the O.A. was fixed as
23.02.2021 and on the date fixed, counsel for the respondents put his appearance and
sought four weeks' time to file detailed counter affidavit, which was granted and the
next date in the matter was fixed as 08.04.2021.
5. In between, the respondents filed a transfer application under Section 25 of the
Central Administrative Act, 1985 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Principal Bench’) on 23.03.2021
seeking transfer of O.A. No. 14/2021 filed on behalf of the petitioner before the CAT,
Jodhpur Bench on the ground that three Income Tax Inspectors involved in the same
incident, for which memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner, which
resulted into his removal from the service, have also been terminated and the said
Inspectors have filed separate O.As., two before the CAT, Allahabad Bench and one
before CAT, Lucknow Bench and the same are pending. It is urged that because same
issue is pending before the various Benches of Tribunal and in order to avoid
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conflicting views of the various Benches, the O.A. filed by the petitioner be transferred
to CAT, Allahabad Bench.
6. It appears that after filing of the transfer application on 23.03.2021, one Misc.
Application has also been filed by the respondents before the Principal Bench on
05.05.2021 levelling allegations against the CAT, Jodhpur regarding its prejudicial
attitude while entertaining O.A. preferred on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner
has also filed his response to the transfer application before the Principal Bench on
05.05.2021. The learned Chairman of the Principal Bench has passed the impugned
order dated 07.05.2021, transferred the O.A. No. 14/2021 to CAT, Allahabad Bench
from CAT, Jodhpur Bench and also ordered for clubbing it with O.A. Nos. 1031/2017
and 1030/2017 pending at CAT, Allahabad Bench.
7. Assailing the impugned order dated 07.05.2021, learned counsel for the
petitioner has argued that learned Chairman of the Principal Bench has grossly erred in
transferring the O.A. preferred by the petitioner from CAT, Jodhpur Bench to CAT,
Allahabad Bench solely on the ground that two similar cases are pending before the
CAT, Allahabad Bench. It is argued that the cases pending before the CAT, Allhabad
Bench are distinguishable from the case of the petitioner. It is submitted that the
petitioners in those cases were the temporary employees and were removed without
there being any enquiry, whereas the petitioner has been terminated after holding full
fledged enquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is further submitted that the
petitioners before the CAT, Allahabad Bench were the temporary employees and they
were removed without assigning any reason or without holding any enquiry and as
such their cases cannot be equated with the case of the petitioner, who was a
permanent employee and was removed from service as punishment after disciplinary
proceedings.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, precedence has been given to the convenience of
the Government servants for filing the petition before the Central Administrative
Tribunal. Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987
(hereafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1987’) allows a Government servant, who has
retired or terminated from the Government service, to file a petition with the Registrar
of the Bench, where such person is residing at the time of filing of the petition. It is
contended that the petitioner at the time of filing O.A. and at present is residing
within territorial jurisdiction of CAT, Jodhpur and with the transfer of his O.A. from
CAT, Jodhpur to CAT, Allahabad, he will face hardship. It is submitted that the
petitioner is not in employment and his financial position is not so good to engage
another advocate at Allahabad. Apart from all inconvenience of distance, if he is forced
to fight a litigation far away from from his residence, he will suffer irreparable loss.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that writ petition of the
petitioner may be allowed and the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
10. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents have raised
several preliminary objections. The principal preliminary objection raised by the
learned counsel for the respondents is that this writ petition is not maintainable due to
lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the order impugned is passed by the
learned Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi and the
same can only be challenged before the Delhi High Court.
11. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has
placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in L. Chandra
Kumar v. Union of India, 1997 SCC (L&S) 577.
12. It is also contended that even if it is assumed that the order impugned can be
challenged before this Court, then also, the writ petition against the impugned order is
not maintainable before the Division Bench and the petitioner has to file a writ petition
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
before the Single Bench of this Court only.

13. On merits, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned
Chairman of the Principal Bench had not committed any illegality in passing of the
impugned order dated 07.05.2021 as similar matters were pending before the CAT,
Allahabad Bench and to avoid conflicting views, the O.A. preferred by the petitioner
has rightly been ordered to be transferred to CAT, Allahabad Bench.
14. Learned counsel Mr. Bhandari has further contended that the respondents have
demonstrated before the learned Chairman of the Principal Bench about the prejudicial
attitude of the CAT, Jodhpur while entertaining the O.A. filed by the petitioner and the
learned Chairman, after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the
case, has rightly ordered for transfer of the O.A. filed by the petitioner from CAT,
Jodhpur Bench to CAT, Allahabad Bench and the said order is not liable to be
interfered with and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be
dismissed.
15. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
16. First of all we deal with the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel
for the respondents.
17. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1987 provides that persons who have ceased to be in
service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option
file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such
person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.
18. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner at the time of filing
O.A. and at present is residing within territorial jurisdiction of CAT, Jodhpur Bench.
19. Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred
as ‘the Act of 1985’) confers powers upon Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench
to another. Section 25 of the Act of 1985 is reproduced hereunder:
“25. Power of Chairman to transfer cases from one Bench to another.—On the
application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties, and after hearing
such of them as he may desire to be heard, or on his own motion without such
notice, the Chairman may transfer any case pending before one Bench, for disposal,
to any other Bench.”
20. As per the above provision, learned Chairman of the Principal Bench can
transfer any case pending before one Bench to any other Bench either on application
by any of the parties or on his own motion, however, if any party seeks transfer, then
notice is required to be given to other party and if the Chairman decides to transfer
any case from one Bench to another on his own motion, no notice is required to be
given to the person, who has filed O.A.
21. We are of the view that the power conferred upon the Chairman of CAT of
transferring a case from one Bench to another is essentially an administrative power
because the learned Chairman does not function as a tribunal while entertaining any
application seeking transfer of a case from one Bench to another.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Sanjiv
Chaturvedi reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 118 while taking into consideration
Section 25 of the Act of 1985 has held as under:
“58. The power under Section 25 of the Act to transfer cases from one Bench to
another is essentially an administrative power of the Chairman of CAT. Such power
is to be exercised by the Chairman on his own motion or on the application of any of
the parties after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as he may
desire to be heard. The Chairman may, on his motion, transfer any case pending
before one Bench to another without notice.
59………..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60………..
61. A Tribunal created under the Act as also its Chairman derives its powers from
the Act and can only exercise such powers as are conferred by the Act. The
Chairman of the Tribunal exercising its power under Section 25 of the Act does not
function as a Tribunal….”
23. In such circumstances, when the impugned order transferring the O.A. No.
14/2021 from CAT, Jodhpur Bench to CAT, Allahabad Bench has been passed by the
learned Chairman of the Principal Bench on administrative side, the objection raised by
the counsel for the respondents regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is
without any merits and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the objection
raised by the counsel for the respondents regarding non-maintainability of this petition
before the Division Bench is also considered for rejection only because the impugned
order, though is passed by the learned Chairman of the Principal Bench on
administrative side but is only liable to be challenged as per the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (supra) before the Division
Bench of this Court.
24. Now coming merits to the impugned order dated 07.05.2021, it is noticed that
the learned Chairman of the Principal Bench has clearly opined that the petitioner is
entitled to file O.A. before the CAT, Jodhpur Bench as he is residing within the
territorial jurisdiction of that Bench after his services were terminated but has
persuaded to transfer the O.A. filed by the petitioner before the CAT, Allahabad Bench
solely on the ground that the O.As. of other employees, whose services were
terminated in relation to the same incident are pending consideration before the CAT,
Allahabad Bench and CAT, Lucknow Bench.
25. It appears that learned Chairman has not taken into consideration the fact that
two Income Tax Inspectors, who have filed O.As. before the CAT, Allahabad Bench
were temporary employees and their services were terminated without initiation of any
disciplinary proceeding, whereas the petitioner was the permanent employee and
removed from service after full fledged disciplinary proceedings and in such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner is similar to those
temporary employees, whose services have been terminated without any enquiry. It is
interesting to note that the respondents, in their transfer application, came with the
case that four persons viz. Ajit Singh, Manoj Kumar, Roop Narayan Meena and
petitioner Mukesh Kumar Meena were involved in the matter and their services have
been terminated, out of them, two persons viz. Manoj Kumar and Roop Narayan Meena
have filed separate O.As. before the CAT, Allahabad Bench, whereas Ajit Singh has
filed O.A. before CAT, Lucknow Bench while petitioner has filed O.A. before the CAT,
Jodhpur Bench. However, the learned Chairman has ordered for transferring the O.A.
filed by the petitioner only to CAT, Allahabad Bench but has not passed any order in
respect of the O.A. filed by employee Ajit Singh pending at CAT, Lucknow Bench. It is
difficult to comprehend why the O.A. pending before the CAT, Lucknow Bench has not
been ordered to be transferred to CAT Allahabad. For this reason also, the order
impugned is not liable to be sustained.
26. Apart from the above, Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1987 clearly
provides that the persons, whose services have been terminated, can file application
before the Bench of a CAT, where they are residing. The said provision is inserted with
the view to give precedence to the convenience of dismissed or retired employees and
such precedence cannot be disturbed without there being any exceptional
circumstances.
27. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner is not in service and if he is forced to
fight legal battle at the distant place from the place of his residence, it may cause
hardship and inconvenience to him as he will not be able to pursue his case with full
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zeal.
28. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding prejudicial
treatment accorded to them by the CAT, Jodhpur Bench appears to be afterthought
only because in the transfer application preferred on 23.03.2021, no such contention
regarding prejudicial attitude of the CAT, Jodhpur Bench has ever been raised but the
same has been raised by filing a misc. application when the reply to the transfer
petition is filed by the petitioner.
29. Be that as it may, learned Chairman of the Principal Bench has not ordered for
transferring the O.A. No. 14/2021 on the ground that respondents were treated
prejudicially by the CAT, Jodhpur Bench, therefore, the said contention of the learned
counsel for the respondents is also liable to be rejected.
30. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order
dated 07.05.2021 passed by learned Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi is hereby set aside. The CAT, Jodhpur Bench shall hear and
decide the O.A. No. 14/2021 on its merits.
31. There shall be no order as to cost.
———
†
Principal Bench at Jodhpur
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

Mukesh Kumar Meena v. CIT, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 1656

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mukesh Kumar Meena v. CIT, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 1656

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Sunday, November 19, 2023

2021 SCC OnLine Raj 1656

In the High Court of Rajasthan†

Mukesh Kumar Meena … Petitioner;

before the Single Bench of this Court only.

You might also like