Prakash Shukla,J.

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:-

"1. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra along with Shri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Srivastava along with Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 to 4.

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 Cour