Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3939
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, J
T Radhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Department Of Personnel And Training – Respondent
O.A./2863/2024
The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of considering pending memorials in accordance with natural justice principles, directing a reasoned decision within twelve weeks.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Original Application seeking directions for consideration of memorials related to TA bills - The applicant, a retired officer, challenged the inaction of respondents in finalizing his memorials and sought personal hearing. The Tribunal directed the competent authority to consider the pending memorials and pass a reasoned order within twelve weeks. (Paras 1, 6, 8)
(B) Natural Justice - The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings, ensuring the applicant's contentions are duly considered. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a retired officer, sought relief regarding the pending consideration of his memorials concerning TA bills, asserting the inaction of the respondents as unconstitutional and arbitrary. The applicant had previously filed an OA regarding the recovery of TA bills, which led to a directive for consideration of his claims.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal directed the competent authority to consider the pending memorials and communicate the decision to the applicant within twelve weeks, emphasizing the need for a reasoned order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents had acted unjustly by failing to finalize the applicant’s memorials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principles of natural justice necessitate that the applicant's memorials be considered and decided upon in a fair manner, ensuring a reasoned decision is provided.
Result: Original Application disposed of with directions.
ORDER (Oral)
By way of present Original Application filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants are seeking following main relief(s) [as extracted from the OA] reproduced as –
“8. In the facts and circumstances mentioned in the above paras, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to pass an order:-
(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present OA before the Hon’ble Tribunal for the proper adjudication in the matter.
(b) Declaring the actions of respondent no.1 not to considering and finalizing the memorials of the applicant dt.15.07.15 (Annexure A-1) and 23.01.17 (Annexure A/2) whereas it reveals from the order dt. 19.01.23 served with the covering letter dt.24.05.24 (Annexure A/3 Colly) that admittedly against the aforesaid memorials still there is no response is as biased, perverse, illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional, mechanical, against the article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, against the mandatory provisions of law and against the principles of natural justice and thereafter;
(c) Directing the respondent no.1 to consider and finalize the memorials of the applicant dt.15.07.15 (Annexure A/1) and 23.01.17 (Annexure A/2) on merits after giving a personal hearing to the applicant herein within some stipulated period which this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly deem proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) Allowing the instant OA with consequential benefits and costs.
(e) Any other fit and proper relief may also be kindly granted.”
2. Briefly stated facts, as adumbrated by the applicant in the OA, are -
(i) The applicant was an officer of 1978 batch, superannuated from service on 31.07.2016. One of the posts held by the applicant in Chhattisgarh Cadre was that of President, Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue w.e.f. 29.02.2008 to 16.12.2010 in the rank and pay scale of Chief Secretary to the State Government and the said post is the cadre post at the apex level at par with Chief Secretary to the State Government. In the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh, only Additional Chief Secretary level officers employed in MP Secretariat were required to seek prior approval of the Chief Secretary before undertaking official tours outside the State and for foreign tours, approval of Hon’ble Chief Minister would be necessary. Officers holding a non-Secretariat assignment as Chief Secretary, were their own controlling officer in respect of official tours outside the State but within India.
(ii) The State of Chhattisgarh also adopted all rules, regulations, acts, executive instructions of un-divided State of Madhya Pradesh and the applicant, who was holding the post outside the Secretariat, viz., President, Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue in the rank of Chief Secretary was his own controlling officer in respect of official tours outside the State than foreign tours.
(iii) It is also the case of the applicant that on 02.09.2011(Annexure A-4) an Office Memorandum was issued by respondent no.2 to the effect that henceforth all officers of the rank of Additional Chief Secretary would be required to seek the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister before undertaking official tours outside the State. As the aforesaid OM Annexure -4 is applicable prospectively, hence, it is not applicable to the period of the applicant’s posting as President, Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue from 29.02.2008 to 16.02.2010. The applicant while posted in the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue in exigencies of service was required to undertake official tours outside the State within India from time to time and due to severe budgetary constraints under the Travelling Allowance head, which was the order of Rs.3.00 lakhs only, all TA bills could not be passed and drawn from the Treasury for which the applicant had been repeatedly urging to the respondent no.3 to grant additional allotment and the applicant continued to u
