Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010107942016 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1320/2016 RAJ KUMAR DAS S/O SATYA NATH DAS, R/O KAMALA STORE, NEAR PRAGJYOTISH COLLEGE, SANTIPUR, P.O. and P.S. BHARALUMUKH, GHY-9, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. DEPTT. OF POST, NEW DELHI 2:CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL ASSAM POSTAL CIRCLE GHY-1 3:DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES H.Q. ASSAM POSTAL CIRCLE MEGHDOOT BHAWAN GHY-1 4:SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICER NALBARI BARPETA DIVISION NALBARI-781335 5:MRITYUNJOY CHOUDHURY INQUIRY OFFICER and ASSTT. SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS PROJECT ARRO Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J SARMA, MR. M C DAS Advocate for the Respondent : , MR. S. SARMA (CGC) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 26.05.2026 Heard Mr. J Sarma, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Sarma, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents. Mr. S Sarma, Learned CGC appearing for the Respondents has raised a preliminary objection, with regard to the maintainability of the present Writ Petition, before this Court. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, who was an employee of the Postal Department, has presented a challenge to an order dated 30.07.2013, issued by the Director of Postal Services (Headquarter, Assam Circle, Guwahati), imposing upon him, penalty of removal from service on conclusion of a departmental proceeding. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition, is covered by the provisions of Section 3 (q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and accordingly, the jurisdiction to consider the said issue, in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1985, would be before the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, at the first instance. The said issue is no longer res integra after the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of L. Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261. Para 93 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of L. Chandrakumar (Supra), being relevant, is extracted, hereinbelow : “93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are Page No.# 3/4 competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have thepower to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the High Court concerned may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned.” A perusal of the above quoted paragraph from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of L. Chandrakumar (Supra), would go to reveal that a High Court should not act as a Court of first instance, in respect of a dispute, which solely falls within the ambit of the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court holds that the present Writ Petition would not be maintainable before this Court. In view of the said position, Mr. J Sarma, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he be permitted to withdraw the present Writ Petition, with liberty to approach the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, with an appropriate application, for redressal of his grievances. The submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is accepted. The present Writ Petition accordingly, stands dismissed on withdrawal, Page No.# 4/4 with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, by way of filing an appropriate application. It is further provided that in the event the Petitioner approaches the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, within a period of 45 (Forty-Five) days from today, the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, while considering the application for condonation of delay, in preferring the original application before it, shall take into consideration that the Petitioner was bonafidely persecuting the issue, involved before this Court, in the present Writ proceedings, w.e.f 09.02.2016. JUDGE Comparing Assistant