Tribunals cannot direct disciplinary authorities to initiate proceedings against particular officials.

The applicant, a Railway employee, sought consideration of representations dated 7 and 15 February 2020 requesting disciplinary action against officials involved in his disciplinary proceedings.

He had also initially sought ₹50 crore in compensation, but later withdrew that relief and confined his claim to the representations.

The respondents opposed the application, arguing that its substance was a request to compel disciplinary proceedings against officials, a matter outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

1. Whether the Tribunal could direct the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against officials involved in the applicant’s disciplinary case.

2. Whether the application was maintainable as a service matter within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 defines “service matters.”

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 19 does not permit it to assume the role of a competent disciplinary authority or direct that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a particular person; initiation of such proceedings rests with the competent authority, to be exercised under the applicable service rules and on the available material.

The respondents cited Uflex Limited v. Government of Tamil Nadu, Civil Appeal Nos. 4862–4863 of 2021, concerning costs for frivolous litigation, but the Tribunal did not impose costs.

The Tribunal looked to the substance, rather than the form, of the applicant’s prayer.

Although framed as a request to consider his representations, the relief sought would in effect require the respondents to initiate disciplinary action against officials.

The Tribunal held that this decision belongs to the competent disciplinary authority and cannot be substituted by the Tribunal in judicial review.

It therefore found that the relief did not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over service matters under Section 3(q).

It summarily rejected/dismissed the Original Application and, despite observing that the applicant’s conduct might warrant exemplary costs, ordered the parties to bear their own costs.