Allahabad High Court: In the writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the division bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla set aside the impugned order. The bench observed that the Tribunal had mistakenly approached the matter as if it were exercising the powers of judicial review akin to that of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They highlighted that the Tribunal’s decision was made through summary proceedings, wholly oblivious of the actual legal position. There is similarity of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal vis-à-vis the High Court, but this does not take away the initial role of the Tribunal to act as a Court / Tribunal of first instance. There are various issues which should have been seen by the Tribunal.
Concerning the scope and power of jurisdiction of the Tribunal while considering and deciding an original application, under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (‘Act, 1985’), whether its powers are akin to the powers of judicial review, available to the High Court under Article 226 in the Constitution of India, or they are akin to a Court or a Tribunal of first instance, the Court said that the Act, 1985 was promulgated with a reference to Article 323-A of the Constitution of India. The very purpose of constitution of Tribunals under the said Act and Article 323-A of the Constitution is to ensure a forum for speedy and effective adjudication of disputes pertaining to terms and conditions of service of officers and employees, whether they be of the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.
The Court explained that the Tribunals constituted under the Act, 1985 have certain powers analogous to the High Court, such as to decide the vires of an enactment, except the Act, 1985 under which they have been constituted, but at the same time, they are also supposed to act as Courts or Tribunals of first instance so as to thrash out findings of fact also.
The Court further remarked that it is a misconception, that Tribunals while exercising the powers under the Act, 1985 in fact exercise powers of judicial review, in the narrow sense, as the High Court does under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
After referring to Section 4 of the Act, 1985, which provides for the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction, the Court said that the Tribunal consists of judicial and administrative members, both. The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunals have been dealt with in Chapter III of the Act, 1985. Section 14 deals with the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereas Section 15 deals with State Administrative Tribunals, constituted under the Act, 1985. Section 22 deals with powers and procedure of Tribunals.
The Court highlighted that although the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but it is to be guided by the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act, 1985.
The Court noted that Section 22 (3) of the 1985 Act clearly provides that the Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the CPC, 1908, while trying a suit.
The Court emphasized that the Tribunal while adjudicating a service dispute is empowered to enter into questions of fact, and decide factual issues based on evidence, as is done by the Civil Court, even though not bound by the provisions of CPC, 1908. In fact, the Tribunal is a substitute for the Civil Court. Prior to constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Act, 1985, the remedy was before the Civil Court, and therefore, an alternative forum has been provided under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India. It can take evidence, evaluate it and record findings of fact. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the other hand, do not permit such an exercise.
After taking note of L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261, wherein it has been observed that “we may add that the Tribunal 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”.
The Court concluded that, in the present case, the Tribunal has declined to enter into the factual issues on a misconception, as if it was exercising powers of judicial review as are exercised by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by way of summary proceedings, wholly oblivious of the legal position as aforesaid. The similarity of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal vis-à-vis the High Court has been clearly discussed and explained by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar (Supra). This does not take away the initial role of the Tribunal to act as a Court / Tribunal of first instance. There are various issues which should have been seen by the Tribunal.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and restored the Transfer Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal to be heard and decided afresh.
[Arun Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine All 6065, decided on 24-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Utsav Mishra,Gaurav Mehrotra
Counsel for Respondent: A.S.G.I.,Anurag Srivastava, Raj Kumar Singh
Buy Constitution of India HERE
