C.W.P. No. 23914 of 2012 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 23914 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision 28.1.2013

K.L.Manhas

--Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others

--Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, JUDGE

Present: Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner

Mr.Kamal Sehgal,Addl.A.G.Haryana, for respondent No.2

Mr.Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Senior Counsel for Union of India

Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate,for respondent No.4.

A.K.SIKRI, CJ: (Oral)

CM No.18119 of 2012

Annexures P-13 and P-14 are taken on record.

CM is disposed.

CWP No.23914 of 2012

In this petition, the petitioner impugns order dated 28.5.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in O.A preferred by the petitioner herein. O.A. was filed for quashing charge memo dated 13.5.2005. The said OA is rejected by the Tribunal vide the impugned order, primarily on the ground that the

C.W.P. No. 23914 of 2012 (O&M) 2

petitioner had sought same relief, namely, quashing of the charge memo dated 13.5.2005 earlier as well and OA NO.174 of 2010 before the Principal Bench, Delhi which was rejected as pre-mature.

The petitioner also sought review of this order which was again rejected on 21.8.2012 without making any enquiry into the charge memo dated 13.5.2005 and it has now resulted into imposition of penalty order dated 26.11.2012 imposing the penalty of reduction of pay to a lower scale by 14 months. That order is also challenged in this petition.

We find that earlier OA was dismissed challenging the validity of charge memo dated 13.5.2005 on the ground that relief sought was pre-mature as the enquiry was under progress and the second OA is also dismissed on the ground that the first OA had been dismissed. In these two OAs, the petitioner wanted quashment of the charge memo dated 13.5.2005 as he challenged issuance of the charge memo on various grounds.

It is not necessary even to go into the validity of the order dated 28.5.2012 as in the meantime, penalty is imposed and remedy to challenge that order in the first instance lies by invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1125 (1). We are of the opinion that the petitioner should first approach the Tribunal to challenge the order dated 26.11.2012. It would be open to the petitioner to lay his challenge before the Tribunal, on all grounds which are available to him in law including charge memo dated 13.5.2005. Needless to mention that the Tribunal will have to adjudicate upon the orders of penalty passed between 2012

C.W.P. No. 23914 of 2012 (O&M) 3

on merits.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly in the aforesaid

terms.

(A.K.SIKRI) CHIEFJUSTICE

28.1.2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) rr JUDGE