The present petitions are directed against common order dated 28.4.2016 passed by the Tribunal whereby in the first part of the order the application is allowed, whereas in the latter part of the order, the application is dismissed. But the prayer of the petitioner is to maintain first part of the order which is favourable to her and for the second part of the order, the petitioner contends that such an order could not be passed by the Tribunal.

2. As such, we need not examine in detail the facts and the merits of the case. But the relevant aspects are that the petitioner preferred application before the Tribunal with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 20.8.2015 and hence, she also prayed to direct the respondents to restore seniority position of the applicant with effect from 9.5.1988. The said application was heard by the Tribunal and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was last heard in February, 2016 and the order was reserved. Thereafter, the impugned order is passed by the Tribunal. Under circumstances, the present petitions before this Court.

3. We have heard Mr. B.M. Shyam Prasad, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. P.B. Ajit, for the petitioner and Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and also Ms. Gowhar Unnissa, learned CGC for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Upon hearing the learned Advocate appearing for both the sides and on examination of the records produced in the present proceedings it appears that the following aspects are apparent:

(1) Impugned orders are passed by two members of the Tribunal on 28.04.2016, one was judicial member and another was administrative member.

(2) The order comprises of two parts: (i) one part of the order appears to have been dictated by the judicial member and the conclusion recorded in the said order is of allowing of OA as observed in the said order. Second part of the order is stated to have been dictated by the administrative member. Ultimately concludes that applicant is not entitled to any relief and OA is devoid of merit and hence, OA be dismissed.

5. Surprising aspect is that both the parts of order i.e., one for allowing and second for dismissal, are signed by both the members namely, judicial member as well as administrative member. In the first part of order the administrative member has just signed, but in the second part of the order after the signature of administrative member the judicial member has recorded as under:

“After having gone through the dessent note by my learned brother, I have chosen to decide in compliance with it. Therefore, the OA is dismissed.”

6. The aforesaid fact situation goes for showing the circumstances that both the members must have dictated their reasons and conclusions by separate order. Whereas, while simultaneously signing both the parts of order one for allowing the application and another for dismissal of application, the aforesaid note made by the judicial member comes on record.

7. At this stage, we wish to record that there are two conflicting views of the members of bench, one for allowing the application and another for dismissal. For any descanting views between two members of the Tribunal may be judicial or may be administrative, the view expressed by the respective member will be signed by the said member only and it may not be signed by the other member, who has recorded dessent note. But ofcourse when both dessent views are recorded, the third portion of the order by formulating the points for the differences and for making reference to the third member would be required to be signed by both the members, who are party to both the dissenting notes/views.

8. At this stage, we may also refer to the procedure contemplated by the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, more particularly Rule 106 and 107 which reads as under:

“106. Pronouncement of order by any one Member of the Bench:-- (a) Any one Member or the Bench may pronounce the or