1. Challenge to an order by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal staying proceedings pending before a Division Bench of the same Tribunal. (Para 2 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 105
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
All India Institute Of Medical Sciences – Appellant
Vs.
Sanjiv Chaturvedi And Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1392 of 2019 (@ SLP(C) No. 27490 of 2018)
Decided on : 01-02-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
AIIMS being under full control of Central government, objection to appearances of the Additional Solicitor General, representing the Central government in the same proceedings is preposterous.
CAT though not bound by Evidence Act and CPC, is bound by rules of evidence and procedure under the Act and regulations framed there-under.
Chairman of CAT does not have power u/s 25 to pass any interim order of stay of proceedings pending before a Bench of the Tribunal.
A judicial order, interim or final, can be vacated, varied, modified, recalled or reviewed by a Bench of coordinate strength or larger strength or a higher forum, but not a smaller Bench of lesser strength.
AIIMS being under full control of Central government, objection to appearances of the Additional Solicitor General, representing the Central government in the same proceedings is preposterous.
CAT though not bound by Evidence Act and CPC, is bound by rules of evidence and procedure under the Act and regulations framed there-under.
Chairman of CAT does not have power u/s 25 to pass any interim order of stay of proceedings pending before a Bench of the Tribunal.
A judicial order, interim or final, can be vacated, varied, modified, recalled or reviewed by a Bench of coordinate strength or larger strength or a higher forum, but not a smaller Bench of lesser strength.
Subject
Administrative Law - TRIBUNALS
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Additional Solicitor General of India representing Union of India – Also arguing for appellant – Objection of respondent that Additional Solicitor General of India was not authorized by AIIMS – Objection should have been taken before High Court – AIIMS being under full control of Central government, objection to appearances of the Additional Solicitor General, representing the Central government in the same proceedings, held, preposterous. (Para 37)
(2012) 12 SCC 255; (2010) 13 SCC 735 – Distinguished
(b) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Sections 14 and 15 r/w Article 323A, Constitution of India – Tribunal, though not bound by Evidence Act and CPC, are bound by rules of evidence and procedure under the Act and regulations framed there-under. (Para 45, 62)
(1991) Supp. (2) SCC 228 – Referred
(c) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 5(2), 5(6), Proviso to Section 24, and Section 25 – Chairman of the Tribunal is an entity distinct from the Tribunal – He exercises administrative and such other powers as expressly conferred on him – Section 24 limits the power to pass interim order – For a maximum duration of fourteen days – Chairman of CAT does not have power u/s 25 to pass any interim order of stay of proceedings pending before a Bench of the Tribunal. (Para 50, 56, 60, 61)
(1994) 4 SCC 225 – Relied upon
(d) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Sections 12 and 25 – Chairman of the Tribunal can only exercise financial and administrative powers over the Benches – He can only constitute the Benches but cannot interfere with functioning of the Benches or tinker with its orders by passing interim orders – Instant stay of proceedings before a Division Bench by Chairman sitting singly held without jurisdiction. (Para 64, 68)
(2011) 8 SCC 249; (2014) 13 SCC 539; (2013) 2 SCC 398; (2007) 8 SCC 449 – Referred
(1994) 2 SCC 401; (1997) 3 SCC 261 – Distinguished
(e) Administration of justice – Judicial decorum and propriety – A judicial order, interim or final, can be vacated, varied, modified, recalled or reviewed by a Bench of coordinate strength or larger strength or a higher forum, but not a smaller Bench of lesser strength. (Para 65, 66, 67)
(1976) 3 SCC 677; (2001) 4 SCC 448 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Respondent no.1 was appointed Deputy Secretary of AIIMS on 29.6.2012. He was also made Central Vigilance Officer of the AIIMS.
The work of the General Section was withdrawn from the respondent no.1 in November 2012, the work of Central Vigilance Officer was withdrawn from him in August 2014, the work of dealing with grievances and Estate Section was withdrawn from him in 2015. Ultimately the respondent no.1 was left practically without any work, apart from signing pension papers and booking guest houses.
respondent no.1 filed an application being O.A. No.1887 of 2015 before the Principal Bench of the CAT at Delhi, inter alia, for directions on the concerned authorities to allocate the work of Deputy Secretary to the respondent no.1. The said application has been dismissed by a judgment and order dated 17.5.2016.
On 28.6.2016, the four year deputation of the respondent no.1 as Deputy Secretary at AIIMS came to an end, and he joined his new post at Uttarakhand in August, 2016.
The Union of India filed an application before the Chairman of the Tribunal being PT 316 /2017 seeking transfer of OA No. 331/00790/2017 filed by respondent 1 to the Principal Bench at Delhi. Chairman of the CAT, sitting singly, stayed proceedings in OA No.331/00790/2017 pending before a two member Bench at Nainital for a period of six weeks, and directed that notice be issued to the respondent no.1.
The High Court set aside the order dated 18.9.2017 of the Chairman, observing that the Chairman of the Tribunal, while sitting singly, could not stay the proceedings pending before the Division Bench. The High Court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly allowed the appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed with cost.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR
For Union of India :Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Adv. Mr. R.H.A. Sikander, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Jamnesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Angshasish Chaliha, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Danish, Adv., for the Respondent; Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sumit Teterwal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makkar, AOR
For the Appellant : Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR
For Union of India :Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Adv. Mr. R.H.A. Sikander, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Jamnesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Angshasish Chaliha, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Danish, Adv., for the Respondent; Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sumit Teterwal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makkar, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Chairman, sitting singly, possesses statutory power under the Administrative Tribunals Act to stay proceedings and interim orders passed by a Division Bench. (Para 26 , 30 , 32 )
3. The power to transfer cases under Section 25 is administrative and does not include the power to grant interim stays of proceedings before a Bench. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 )
4. A Chairman sitting singly cannot stay proceedings or nullify interim orders passed by a Division Bench, as judicial propriety requires orders be vacated by coordinate or larger Benches. (Para 63 , 65 , 68 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the High Court order quashing the Chairman's stay order is upheld with costs. (Para 73 , 74 )
6. Does the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal have the power to stay proceedings while transferring a case under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act?
No. The power to transfer cases under Section 25 is essentially administrative. The Act does not confer any power upon the Chairman under this section to pass an interim stay of proceedings pending before a Bench. (Para 58 , 59 , 61 )
7. Can a Chairman or Member sitting as a Single Bench nullify or stay an order passed by a Division Bench of the same Tribunal?
No. A judicial order passed by a Tribunal is binding on the Tribunal itself on its administrative side. Judicial decorum and propriety dictate that an order be vacated or modified only by a Bench of coordinate or larger strength. (Para 63 , 65 )
8. Does Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act empower the Chairman sitting singly to override the decisions of a larger Bench?
No. Section 5(6) allows the Chairman or an authorized Member to function as a Single Bench for specific classes of cases, but it does not enable the Chairman sitting singly to nullify orders passed by a larger Bench. (Para 55 )
9. What are the statutory conditions for granting interim orders under Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act?
Interim orders require that copies of the application and supporting documents be furnished to the opposite party and an opportunity to be heard be provided, unless exceptional circumstances justify a short-term order to prevent irreparable loss. (Para 56 , 57 )
JUDGMENT
Indira Banerjee, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against the final judgment and order dated 21.08.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital allowing the writ petition being WPSB No.359 of 2018 filed by the respondent no.1 and quashing the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CAT") at the Principal Bench at Delhi, inter alia, staying proceedings in OA 331/00790/ 2017 filed by the respondent no.1 and pending before a Division Bench of CAT at Nainital.
3. The respondent no.1, an Indian Forest service officer of the Uttarakhand cadre of 2002 Batch was posted as Deputy Secretary at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi from 29.6.2012 till 28.6.2016.
4. The said post of Deputy Secretary was created with the approval of the Department of Expenditure, inter alia, to coordinate and manage infrastructure projects and ensure their timely completion, to exercise management and control of the Institute and to coordinate with Multi Disciplinary Experts.
5. At its 195th meeting held on 20.7.2010, the Standing Finance Committee of the Institute decided against the creation of a new post of Central Vigilance Officer and resolved that the work of Central Vigilance Officer should also be assigned to the officer, joining the newly created post of Deputy Secretary of AIIMS. The Governing Body and Institute body of AIIMS headed by the Union Health Minister ratified the decision of the Standing Finance Committee.
6. An order dated 23.6.2011 was issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare enumerating the duties pertaining to the said post of Deputy Secretary of AIIMS.
7. As stated above, respondent no.1 was appointed Deputy Secretary of AIIMS on 29.6.2012. As per the work allocation order the respondent no.1 was also made Central Vigilance Officer of the AIIMS.
8. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that the work of the General Section was withdrawn from the respondent no.1 in November 2012, the work of Central Vigilance Officer was withdrawn from him in August 2014, the work of dealing with grievances was withdrawn from him some time in 2015 and in December 2015 the work of the Estate Section was withdrawn from him. Ultimately the respondent no.1 was left practically without any work, apart from signing pension papers and booking guest houses.
9. According to the respondent no.1, there was delay in completion of infrastructure projects, which along with the way in which the respondent no.1 had been denuded of duties by successive office orders, attracted severe criticism in a report of the Parliamentary Committee.
10. According to the respondent no.1, at the time when he was assigned the work of Central Vigilance Officer, the then Health Secretary had commented on his "exemplary performance" and "absolute integrity". Moreover, the respondent no.1 was, in his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 graded as 'outstanding', with the following remarks by the then Union Health Minister "Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi, Deputy Secretary and CVO, AIIMS, New Delhi, is a man of integrity, sincerity, who is keen on performing his assigned role to the best of his ability and knowledge without fear or favour".
11. The respondent no.1 had been awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award for the year 2015 in recognition of his exemplary integrity, courage and tenacity, inter alia, in uncompromisingly exposing and painstakingly investigating corruption in public office. Records reveal that the respondent no.1 had donated the award money of Rs. 14,23,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund after the All India Institute of Medical Sciences refused to accept his donation of the award money to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for free treatment of under privileged patients.
12. According to the respondent no.1, no complaint of any kind was received against him from any employee during his two year tenure a
