ViW HIGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ. HON'BLE SHRi V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. i:!sa Writ Petition No.386 of 2002 1. Jagdamba Singh aged about 35 years S/o Tejbahadur R/o Shankar Nagar Bilaspur, Thana Torba, Tahsil Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Rajesh Kumar aged about 30 years S/o Chhedilal R/o Babu Kholi, Biiaspur, Thana Torba, Tahsil Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Mohanlal Kori S/o Alguram, R/o Mohan Building Thana Torba, Tahsil Biiaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Naruttam S/o Anjardas R/o Jairam Nagar, Thana Torba, Tahsil Bi'aspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Union of India throug'h the Senior Divisionai Personnel OfRcer, South Eastern Railway Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. General Manager, South Eastern Railway Garden Reach Koikata -43 (W.B.) Shri A.K.Gupta, counsel forthe petitioners. Shri P.S.Koshy, StandingCounselforthe respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13m Mareh, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by The petitionsrs were employses of the respondents/South Eastern Railways. They are caliing in question the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 24-11-1998 terminating their services. (2) Shri P.S.Koshy, iearned counse! appearing for the respondents by way of preliminary objection would submit that if for any reason, the peffiioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents dismissing them from service, they should have filed an appropriate applicatlon before the Central Administrative Tribunal as provided under Section 19 of the Administrative TnL'unals Act. Thsrefore, learned counse! would -^ubmlt that the petition fited by the petitioners is not main'ainabie before this Court. (3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners does not dispute the legal position, but however, contends that the respondents without supplying a copy of the enquiry officer's report, could not have passed the impugned order. In our view, the petitioners and their learned counse! can raise the aforesaid contentions before the Centrai Administrative Tribunal in an application that the petitioners may file. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the iearned counsel for the petitioners. Since the petitioners have an alternative, sffective and a statutory remedy against the impugned order of the discipiinary authority daSed 24-11-1998, we decline to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. However, liberty is , reserved to the petitioners, if they so desire, to question the correctness " or otherwise of the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 24-11- 1998 before the Central Administrative Tribuna! by filing an appropriate application within a month's time from today. If such an application is filed within the time granted, the Tribunal shall decide the said application on msrits without reference to the period of limitation. All the contentions ( of both the parties are left oEen^Ordered accordingly. y ' Sd/- • ChiefJustice Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava Judge