Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
RAJAN ROY, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, JJ.
Arun Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Thru.Secy.Ministry Of Chemical And Fertilizer Deptt. Chemical Petro Chemical And Ors – Respondents
Writ A No. 3089 of 2024
Decided on : 24-09-2024
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Jurisdiction and powers of the Central Administrative Tribunal - The Tribunal must act as a court of first instance, not merely exercising judicial review akin to High Courts under Article 226 - The Tribunal's failure to address factual issues led to the setting aside of its judgment. (Paras 10, 8, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order regarding alleged misconduct in conducting tests and issuing certificates, questioning the evidence and procedures followed in the inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal misdirected itself by not addressing factual issues and exercising powers akin to judicial review, which is not its role under the Act.
Issues: The main issues included the scope of the Tribunal's powers under the Act and whether it misdirected itself in its proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Tribunal must engage in factual inquiries and cannot act solely as a reviewing body, as established in L. Chandra Kumar's case.
Result: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the Transfer Application was restored for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
1) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in a Transfer Application bearing No. 01 of 2017 (Arun Kumar Gupta Vs. Union of India & Ors.).
2) The judgment and order dated 26.04.2024 reads as under:-
2. Let Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 satisfy the Court firstly as to there being any evidence to establish even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that the petitioner herein conducted 17 tests misusing his official position illegally.
3. Secondly, that he did not conduct any test in respect of other samples and issued a certificate in favour of M/s Satyadeep Polypipes, Jalpaigudi and that for the aforesaid illegal acts he accepted money from the proprietor of the Firm.
4. Thirdly, whether the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the oral complaint of Shri S. Goenka, Proprietor of the said Firm or some other material. If so, what was it.
5. Fourthly, whether there is any evidence or any witness who may have seen the petitioner preparing the certificate in question and signing it.
6. Fifthly, whether the hand writing expert, who has opined that the signature on the certificate in question is that of the petitioner, was produced during inquiry proceedings. If not, what is the consequence of it upon the validity of such proceedings.
7. Sixthly, whether there is any evidence that PVC Pipes were brought to the premises of CIPET on a four wheeler as considering their size it would not have been possible to carry them on a two wheeler but the number of the vehicle which has come in evidence was ultimately found to be that of a two wheeler, therefore, what is the evidence about 17 tests being carried out on three samples of resist PVC Pipes after bringing those pipes found in the premises.
8. Seventhly, whether Shri S. Goenka, who is alleged to have been made the oral complaint, appeared before the Inquiry Officer and was examined.
9. If any fax message was received from him or his Firm supporting the charges against the petitioner what exercise was conducted by the Inquiry Officer to verify the veracity of the said Fax Message that it had been sent by Shri S. Goenka or his Firm and what was the evidence in this regard.
10. Learned counsel for the parties shall also address the Court upon the scope of power and jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal while considering and deciding an Original Application under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; whether its power are akin to the powers of judicial review available to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or they are akin to a Court or a Tribunal of first instance, such as, the Civil Court and whether the Tribunal has misdirected itself by proceeding to decide the OA, as if, it was exercising the powers of judicial review for which it was guided by a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. Subrata Nath; Civil Appeal Nos. 7939-7940 of 2022 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) NO. 3524 of 2022.
11. List/put up no 29.04.2024 as fresh."
3) Although, we had put certain queries to the opposite parties Counsel vide our order dated 26.04.2024, which are contained in Paragraph 2 to 9, but in Paragraph 10 of our order, we had also proposed to consider the scope of power and jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal while considering and deciding an original application, under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1985); whether its powers are akeen to the powers of judicial review, available to the High Court under Article 226 in the Constitution of India, or they are akeen to a Court or a T
The Central Administrative Tribunal must act as a court of first instance, addressing factual inquiries rather than merely exercising judicial review powers.
The administrative power of the Chairman under Section 25 of the 1985 Act to transfer cases is distinct from the decision-making powers on the judicial side, and the scope of judicial review of an ad....
The lack of jurisdiction of a tribunal is a fundamental issue that can be raised at any stage, and any decision made by a tribunal without jurisdiction is a nullity.
Review jurisdiction is limited to identifying manifest errors on the face of the record; rearguing previously settled issues is not permissible.
Power of judicial review of an order transferring an Original Application pending before a Bench of Tribunal to another Bench under Section 25 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 can be judicially ....
Jurisdiction of courts except Supreme Court - It is not open for litigant to directly approach the High Court even in cases where vires of statutory legislation is challenged, by overlooking jurisdic....
Administrative tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, and bypassing them for adjudication in High Court is generally not permitted unless in exceptional circumstances.
The Central Administrative Tribunal must act independently as the court of first instance and cannot rely on previously quashed High Court orders in its adjudication.
The Administrative Tribunal cannot set aside arbitral awards as jurisdiction for such challenges lies exclusively under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, requiring adherence to its defined proced....
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
