IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.9960 of 2011
Krishna Deo Prasad son of Sri Deonandan Prasad, resident of village Karai
Parsurai, PS Karai Parsurai, District Nalanda, at present posted as Junior Engineer, P. Way Thana
Bihpur (T.H.B) Sonpur Division, E.C.R Hajipur District Vaishali ......... .....Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway,
District Vaishali ( Bihar)
2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, District Vaishali
( Bihar)
3. The General Manager (Vigilance), East Central Railway, District Vaishali
( Bihar)
4. The Principal Chief Engineer, East Central Railway, District Vaishali
( Bihar)
5. Shambhu Kumar son of Sri K. N. Prasad, Chief Vigilance Inspector
(Engineering), East Central Railway Hajipur, District Vaishali (Bihar)
........ .....Respondents
-----------
2 28-06-2011 Heard Mr. S. P. Mukherjee, learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sidharath Prasad,
learned counsel for the railway.
The petitioner was not a party to the
proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal
bearing O.A. No. 777/2010. He has preferred this writ
petition on the ground that the applicant before the
Tribunal ought to have made the petitioner a party and
the Tribunal should have decided the matter after hearing
the petitioner because he is adversely affected by the
impugned order dated 23-11-2010. A perusal of the
impugned order shows that it is an interim order and the
Tribunal has fixed a date for completion of pleadings.
The office has objected to the maintainability
2
of this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was
not a party before the Tribunal. It has rightly been
submitted that even a person who was not a party before
the Tribunal may maintain the writ petition if the order
of the Tribunal affects him adversely. However, in the
facts of the case, we are of the view that interest of
justice will be fully protected if petitioner is granted
liberty to move before the Tribunal for being impleaded
as a respondent and he may also seek review of the
impugned order if he can show to the Tribunal that he is
adversely affected by the order and was required to be
heard before passing of the order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of
with the liberty aforesaid.
It is expected that if the petitioner files an
application by way of review and for impleadment, the
same should be considered expeditiously on its own
merits.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
BKS/- (V. Nath, J.)