ANIL KUMAR,J. - (1.) Heard Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, petitioner (in person) and Sri Aman Mali, Advocate assisted by Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Facts in brief of the present case are that Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj, petitioner (in person), aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 01.07.2019, had filed Original Application No.357 of 2019 in which an order dated 15.07.2019 was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"). The relevant portion of the same reads as under :- "Admittedly, the applicant has been placed under suspension vide order dated 01.07.2019 and he, without, exhausting the departmental remedy available to him under Rule-23 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, rushed to this Tribunal by filing the instatn O.A. Rule-23 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 clearly stipulates that against the order of suspension under Rule-10, an appeal lies before the appellate authority, which the applicant has not availed. Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 also clearly provides that a Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances. Since, there is a specific Rule namely Rule 23 in the CCS (CCA) Rules for filing an appeal against the suspension order passed under Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules, we are of the considered view that this O.A. be disposed of at this stage without calling any counter reply to the respondents, to direct the applicant to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of 7 days from today. Given the fact that the applicant is due to retire soon, hence in the interest of justice, the appellate authority, on receipt of the appeal of the applicant, shall consider and decide it in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter by passing a reasoned and speaking order under limitation to the applicant." The order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal has been challenged by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) On 22.08.2019, this Court had passed an order. The relevant portion of the same is quoted herein below :- "After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the position which emerged out is that the petitioner has already filed an appeal in pursuance to the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal and the same was to be decided within time frame as fixed by the Tribunal i.e. four weeks from the filing of the appeal. However, the same has not been decided by the Appellate Authority till date, so keeping in view of the said facts as well as the facts submitted by the petitioner that he is to retire from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2020, we feel appropriate that at this stage looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the interest of justice will sub-serve, if Appellate Authority is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal filed pursuant to the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal in accordance with law by the next date of listing. Accordingly, Appellate Authority is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal filed pursuant to the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Tribunal in accordance with law by the next date of listing i.e. 02.09.2019 List/put up on 02.09.2019. On the said date, respondent shall file an affidavit annexing the decision taken by the appellate authority, failing which, Appellant Authority shall appear in person before this Court on the said date to explain the reasons as to why the appeal has not been decided within time frame." ;