Back
2001 Supreme(AP) 1475
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GODA RAGHURAM, S.B.SINHA, S.R.NAYAK
V.Devaiah - Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar (Per S.B.Sinha, C.J.) - Respondent
Decided On : 11-22-01
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 193,219 and 228 - Constitution of India,1950 – Article 323-A (2) (a) - Terminated the services - Jurisdiction to condone delay - Whether State Administrative tribunal constituted - Petitioner challenged said order in O. A. Tribunal by reason of an order - Petitioner was appointed as Police constable in Armed Reserve Police of District in year - By an order respondent terminated services of petitioner or ground that he did not undergo three star test at time of selection - He filed before tribunal challenging order of termination wherein direction was given to respondent to conduct test for petitioner – Held, It is therefore not necessary to embark upon an enquiry in this case into larger question as to whether legislative silence Act implicates applicability of provisions of limitation Act - This aspect of matter should be left to be decided in an appropriate case where resolution of question becomes imperative - Court express this view in deference to settled principle that Courts are not to decide larger questions when adjudication can be rested on a narrow has stated - This Court should not make any pronouncement on any question which is not strictly necessary for disposal of particular case before it - Commissioner of Income tax same principle is reiterated by in Central Bank of India Their workmen State Transport appellate Tribunal Madras - These principles have a compulsive obligation in area of constitutional interpretation - Even in other situations it is held to be a salutary principle - Writ petition be allowed
( 1 ) WHETHER the State Administrative tribunal constituted under the administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") has jurisdiction to condone delay in filing review petition is the question referred to this Full Bench. FACTS:
( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Police constable in the Armed Reserve Police of karimnagar District in the year 1990. By an order dated 31-10-1991, the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner or. the ground that he did not undergo the three star test at the time of selection. He filed o. A. No. 47791 of 1991 before the learned tribunal challenging the order of ermination wherein direction was given to the respondent to conduct the test for the petitioner. The respondent found that the petitioner did not come up for selection in the test conducted. The petitioner challenged the said order in O. A. No. 4322 of 1993. The learned Tribunal by reason of an order dated 6-3-1995 allowed-the O. A. , filed by the petitioner. As the respondent did not implement the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed Contempt Application, being c. A. No. 228 of 1996. The respondent On receipt of notice in the contempt case, filed a review petition in Review M. A. (Sr) No. 5662 of 1996 along with a petition in M. A. No. 1646 of 1996 to condone delay of 424 days in filing the review petition. The learned Tribunal allowed the said petition and condoned the delay in filing review petition.
( 3 ) THE petitioner questioning the said order of the learned Tribunal filed the writ petition on the ground that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the inordinate, delay of 424 days in filing the review petition.
( 4 ) ONE of the questions that arose for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court was as to whether in terms of rule 19 of the A. P. Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989, a review application filed beyond the period of thirty days could be entertained. The Division bench having regard to the importance of the question referred the matter to larger bench. FINDINGS:
( 5 ) THE matters relating to the constitution of the Tribunal for the purpose of adjudication of disputes relating to certain matters as enumerated therein being the subject matter of the Central List, there cannot be any doubt, that the same comes within the purview of List I of viith Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Parliament has the legislative power to constitute Tribunals for adjudication of disputes and provide for jurisdictional power of a Court relating to service matters of the State Public Service.
( 6 ) A separate Administrative Tribunal for each State may be constituted for resolution of the service disputes in terms of a legislation enacted under Art. 323-A (2) (a) of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal is of hybrid nature having special constitution protection. The Administrative Tribunal, thus, enjoys constitutional safeguards. The administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is a legislation enacted in terms of Article 323-A of the Constitution of India and it is a complete Code in itself.
( 7 ) SECTION 15 of the Act provides for the jurisdiction, powers and authority of State administrative Tribunals exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts, except the Supreme Court, in relation to service matters specified therein. Section 17 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to punish for contempt by exercising the same jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself, as a High Court, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 21 of the Act prescribes the period of limitation for admitting an application. Section 27 of the Act provides for execution of orders of a tribunal in the same manner in which any final order of the nature referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 would have been executed. Section 30 says that all proceedings before a Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193,2
