Per Swatanter Kumar,C.J.

1. Within the circumscribed limitation of law, The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, is a self contained Code and the administrative tribunal constituted thereunder is to prescribe its procedure under the provisions of the Act. What is the ambit and scope of the procedure and powers of the tribunal, as contemplated under section 22 of the Act, is simple but a pertinent question of law arises for consideration of the Court in the present case. Section 22 of the Act reads as under: “22. Procedure and powers of Tribunal: (1) A Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made by the Central ; Government, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its inquiry and deciding whether to sit in public or in private. (2)......... (3) A 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 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908) while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:- a)........ b)requiring the discovery and production of documents. c) ........... d)......... e).......... f)....... g)..... h)...... i).....................”

2. The expression “requiring the discovery and production of documents” would deem to include powers to ascertain in interrogatories. The very foundation of the contention raised before us, is that the order of the tribunal dated 14th August 2006, by which the application for discovery by interrogatories was dismissed, suffers from error of jurisdiction. The main emphasis is that the tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction, which is lawfully vested in it, within the ambit and scope of the above provisions.

3. The relevant facts are that the petitioner appeared at the common Engineering Service Examination conducted by the UPSC on 23rd July 1987. He had completed the probation and confirmed as Group A office in the Western Railways. He was transferred on various occasions. According to the petitioner, some false, fabricated and mala fide remarks were recorded in the confidential record with the prime object of denying promotion to him. The petitioner first filed Original Application No. 411 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Bench, for quashing and expunging the confidential remarks recorded for the year ending 31st March 1991, which was allowed vide order dated 12th January, 1993. Then again, the petitioner filed another Original Application No.203 of 1997, which was disposed of with a direction that the case of the petitioner be considered for promotion. Thereafter the petitioner filed yet another Original Application No.486 of 2001 wherein he had prayed for setting aside and quashing of the punishment order dated 26th July 1997 and the chargesheet dated 10th January 1995. On the basis of these pending proceedings, the petitioner was denied promotion as on 9th June 2005. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner on 14th February 2006 filed misc. petition in O.A.No. 575 of 2001 (Exhibit I to the petition) for certain interrogatories and requiring the respondents to answer them. The respondents claimed privilege. The tribunal vide its order dated 14th August 2006 directed that the question of privilege would be considered with the main application. However, the request of the petitioner for answering the interrogatories was rejected. The tribunal in its said order held as under: “CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BOMBAY BENCH BOMBAY i) M.P. No. 214/2006 in O.S. No.402/2003 ii) M.P. No. 209/2006 in O.S. No.403/2003 iii) M.P. No. 210/2006 in O.S. No.404/2003 iv) M.P. No. 211/2006 in O.S. No.407/2003 v) M.P. No. 212/2006 in O.S. No.408/2003 Dated this