Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Raghav Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.2020, passed by the Central administrative Tribunal [in short, 'the Tribunal'] in Oa No. 3701/2017.
2. according to Mr Pradeep Dahiya, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, via the impugned order, the Tribunal has disposed of, not only Oa No. 3701/2017 but also Oa No. 3913/2017.
2.1. Mr Dahiya, in this context, draws our attention to the judgment dated 08.12.2021, passed in the W.P.(C) No.12829/2021. This judgment was rendered by this Court qua the very same impugned order of the Tribunal, albeit in Oa No. 3913/2017.
3. Mr anurag ahluwalia, who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, says that, in view of what has been noticed by this Court, he cannot argue to the contrary.
3.1. Given this circumstance, Mr ahluwalia says that no formal reply needs to be filed on behalf of the respondents.
4. Therefore, having regard to the record, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
5. The relevant part of the judgment dated 08.12.2021, referred hereinabove, is extracted hereafter:
"1. On 15.11.2021, we had indicated as to, what was problematic with the
Procedural irregularities in an adjudicatory process cannot be sustained, and the person(s) who hear an aggrieved party must decide and render reasons.
A decision must be rendered by the same individuals who heard a case to ensure procedural fairness and consistency in adjudication.
A tribunal's decision must be made by the same bench that heard the case to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice.
The court emphasized the importance of a discussion on merits in the adjudication of the matter and the need for both sides to have the opportunity to present their respective stands before the Tribu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to address the petitioner's claim regarding the disciplinary authority and the possibility of victimization, and the court's author....
The Court emphasized the necessity for the Tribunal to address cases on merits instead of cycling them through remands, promoting efficiency in judicial proceedings.
The Tribunal's dismissal of an application based solely on limitation, without addressing substantive legal claims, constitutes a reversible error warranting judicial intervention.
A party cannot claim ignorance of judicial decisions when there is sufficient public notice of court proceedings, especially when they are familiar with judicial processes.
The court emphasized that dismissing a case without merit-based reasoning is improper, necessitating remand for a fresh adjudication.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
