KESHOTE, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed by the appellant against the order dated 21st of December, 2002 of the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9796/2002.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant out of which this special appeal arises on the ground that in this matter the writ petition is not maintainable before the learned single Judge. THE learned Single Judge placed reliance in support of his order on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1 ). The appellant joined his service as Indian Defence Estate Service Group-A Officer in the year 1987. In the month of July, 2001 he was, on transfer, posted as Defence Estate Officer, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur. Under the order of the respondent No. 3 dated 24th of May, 2002 the appellant was placed under suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry. The appellant challenged this order by filing the O. A. No. 256/2002 on 29th of May, 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter shall be referred to as `the Tribunal' ). The respondent No. 1 to 3 before the Tribunal contested this application. The learned Tribunal under its order dated 27th of September, 2002 dismissed the O. A. No. 256/2002 of the appellant. The learned Tribunal held that the competent authority has taken a decision keeping in view the nature of the misconduct and thus it is not found it a fit case in which interference is to be made in the order of suspension of the appellant. This judgment of the learned Tribunal has been challenged by the appellant before this court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7516/2002. This writ petition came up for preliminary hearing in the court on 23rd of October, 2002. The learned counsel for the appellant, who is also the counsel for the petitioner in that writ petition, prayed for withdrawal of that writ petition and accordingly the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Though, the copy of this order made in the writ petition aforesaid has not been placed on the record but the zerox copy of the certified copy thereof has been furnished to the court for the perusal by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is marked as Court Document No. 1. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9796/2002 has been presented on 16th of December, 2002. In the petition the prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside of the suspension order (Annexure- 1) dated 24th of May, 2002 and to pass such further orders giving him all consequential benefits with heavy costs against the respondents. The further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to retain the appellant at the same post where he was working before the issue of the suspension order. Lastly he prayed that any other relief which this court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) IN the writ petition in para No. 9 thereof a vague and bald reference has been made of D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7516/2002. We consider it appropriate to reproduce here the exact text of para No. 9 of the writ petition, which reads as under, "9. That the petitioner filed a writ petition before Double Bench of this Hon'ble Court appealing against the order of the Hon'ble CAT but the same was withdrawn at the initial stage of admission itself on 23. 10. 2002. " The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the writ petition the appellant has come up with altogether different case and grievance. The grievance is made that the suspension order of the appellant was not revoked. His subsistence allowance was not reviewed. His revision petition was not decided by the competent authority and the charge sheet was not served upon him for considerable long time. However fact remains, he prayed for setting aside of the suspension. It is further submitted that the appellant has already availed of alternative remedy by approaching to the learned Tribunal. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. ;