1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5677 OF 2003 Ms. Sangeeta D. Punjabi ...... Petitioner. V/s Union of India & Ors. ....... Respondents. ----- Mr. D.V. Gangal for the petitioner. Ms. S.I. Shah i/b M/s S.I. Shah & Co. for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. ------ CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 25th March, 2008 P.C.: 1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.905 of 2001, dismissing the same on the 2 ground that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the same. 2. The relevant facts are that the Petitioner filed the Original Application against the order dated 22/10/2001 passed by the Officer of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. In para 1 of that order itself, it is stated that the petitioner is an employee of the Department of Telecommunication of the Government of India and he is deemed to be on deputation to MTNL. From this order, it is obvious that on the date on which the order removing the petitioner was made, he was an employee of the Government of India, though he was deemed to be on deputation to MTNL. The petitioner, therefore, filed Original Appliction before the Central Administrative Tribunal making a grievance about his removal order. The Central Administrative Tribunal, however, dismissed the Original Application though it noted that, in the Original Application, relief is sought for against the Department of Telecommunication but the Tribunal wrongly observed that the Department of Telecommunication has now become MTNL over which the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. The Tribunal failed to see that from the order dated 22/10/2001 removing the Petitioner from service itself, it is clear that on that date, he was an employee of the Government of India. If the Petitioner was an employee of the Government of India, the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to inquire into the validity or otherwise of the order removing the 3 petitioner from service. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the Original Application only on the ground that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- O R D E R The order dated 12/03/2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside and the Original Application is remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration and decision in accordance with law. Rule is made absolutely with no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4