IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22613 of 2009(S) OA.444/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER: V.SEKHAR, AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.M.K.VINAYAGAM,(EX-DEPUTY CHIEF TICKET INSPECTOR,GRADE II, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,ERODE) RESIDING AT:DOOR NO.340,14TH STREET, PHASE II, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, SATHUVACHARI, VELLORE-632 609. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.T.R.MOHANAKUMAR SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE,PARK TOWN P.O,CHENNAI-3. 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,PALGHAT DIVISION,PALGHAT. 3. THE SENIOR INQUIRY OFFICER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY,HEADQUARTERS OFFICE,CHENNAI-3. 4. THE DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,SALEM DIVISION,SALEM. 5. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,SALEM DIVISION,SALEM. 6. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,SALEM DIVISION,SALEM. 7. THE JOINT DIRECTOR VIGILANCE(T), MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS,RAILWAY BOARD,NEW DELHI. BY SRI.N.B.SUNILNATH, STANDING COUNSEL,RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 22613 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The applicant in O.A. No.444 of 2009 is the writ petitioner. The said Original Application, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2, was filed challenging Annexure A1 to A3 orders. By Annexure A1, the petitioner/applicant was compulsorily retired from the service of the respondents. By Annexure A2, the appeal filed by the applicant against Annexure A1 was dismissed on 17.11.2008. By Annexure A3, the revision attempted by the applicant against Annexure A2 was dismissed on 11.6.2009. 2. Annexure A1 to A3 orders were passed after formation of the Salem Division. All along, the writ petitioner/applicant was working at Erode, which was under the Palakkad Division. At that time, both the Ernakulam Bench and Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction over the matter. The charge memo against the petitioner was issued on 27.6.2006. The petitioner filed his reply on W.P.(C)NO. 22613/2009 2 1.7.2006 and the charge memo was amended on 22.11.2006. An enquiry officer was appointed who filed the enquiry report on 31.10.2007. The next day, i.e. on 1.11.2007, the Salem Division was formed and Erode happened to be under the jurisdiction of Salem Division. The petitioner/applicant had earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, challenging the charge sheet. Since there was no stay, the proceedings were completed and the Original Application was disposed of giving liberty to the applicant to challenge the final order passed against him. The present Original Application filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure A1 to A3 orders was dismissed by the Tribunal on the short point that it has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter. The correctness of the said point is canvassed in this Writ Petition. 3. Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 deals with the place of filing applications. The said rule reads as follows: “6.Place of filing applications.-- (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction - (i) the applicant is posted for the time being W.P.(C)NO. 22613/2009 3 or (ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen: Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under section 25, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) 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.” 4. The petitioner submitted that part of the cause of action has arisen in Palakkad Division. The charge sheet was served on the petitioner while he was working under the Palakkad Division and all proceedings upto the filing of the enquiry report had taken place while he was working under the Palakkad Division. The Tribunal took the view that the right of the petitioner/applicant was infringed only by the passing of Annexure A1 order and only thereafter he gets the cause of action to approach the Tribunal. For taking that view, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 S.C.C. 28. Based on that finding, the Tribunal W.P.(C)NO. 22613/2009 4 dismissed the Original Application. 5. The petitioner submitted that the said decision is distinguishable on facts and it has no application to the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/applicant relied on the decision of the Apex Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, A.IR. 1989 S.C. 1239. Special reference was made to paragraph 12 of the judgment, which reads as follows: “12. A cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.” In view of the above legal position, learned counsel submitted that the W.P.(C)NO. 22613/2009 5 serving of charge sheet can be taken as part of the cause of action. 6. We heard the learned counsel for the Railways also. If, based on the enquiry report and the explanation offered by the petitioner, further proceedings were dropped, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. He was aggrieved only because his objections were overruled and punishment was imposed on him. The petitioner cannot be in any way aggrieved by service of memo of charges or by the decision to hold an enquiry into the charges, on finding his explanation to be not satisfactory. The cause of action can be said to have arisen in this case only when punishment is inflicted and not when a memo is served or an enquiry is held. In view of the above position, we are of the view that the stand taken by the Tribunal is legally valid and does not call for any interference at our hands under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C)NO. 22613/2009 6 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C)NO.22613/2009 JUDGMENT 10th August, 2009 W.P.(C)NO. 22613/2009 7