Central Administrative Tribunal not discharging its statutory obligation, Delhi HC

Dismayed at the manner in which the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was dealing with matters before it, the Delhi High Court has once again opined that the Tribunal, at times, is not discharging its statutory obligation..The observation was made by a Division Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rajnish Bhatnagar in a petition assailing an order passed by the CAT Principal Bench..The Bench headed by Justice Sanghi had earlier passed an order asking the Central Administrative Tribunal to “undertake course correction” with regard to the manner in which it dealt with original applications..Reiterating its disappointment, the Court has said,.“We have earlier as well called upon the Tribunal to undertake deeper scrutiny of cases, since it is the first port of call for the litigant, but it seems our advice has gone unheeded.”.The present case before the High Court was regarding the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature by the State Selection Commission (SSC). The petitioner, Sombir, was debarred for a period of three years by SSC on the allegation that he had resorted to unfair means in the examination..Before the CAT, SSC had argued that the petitioner’s examination form, answer-sheets and other documents were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for examination. As per the result, there was some mismatch. Consequently, it was inferred that the petitioner had resorted to malpractice and unfair means while appearing in the examination..Based on the report, the plea before CAT was dismissed..Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the order passed by CAT was completely devoid of reasons and the Original Application was dismissed without even examining the issues..It was further submitted that the petitioner had advanced several arguments before CAT. However, they were neither recorded nor dealt with by the CAT while passing the order..After hearing the petitioner, the Court remarked that it was “frequently” receiving “cryptic orders” from the CAT..The orders display “total non-application of mind” and indicate the disposal of the Original Applications “without due examination and appreciation of the facts and submissions of parties”, the Court said..Coming to the facts of the case, the Court observed,.“We fail to understand as to how the Tribunal could have disposed of this matter by merely relying upon the cryptic report of the CFSL, particularly when the same was not even accompanied by the relevant documents, with the relevant marking/portions which the CFSL claims to have examined. “.Further analysing the facts at hand, the Court remarked that the Central Administrative Tribunal had denied a fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend the serious allegation made against him..“The least that the Tribunal could have done, was to direct the respondent to produce before it the complete report of the CFSL along with the relevant documents, and the petitioner should have been granted an opportunity to deal with the same.”.It thus concluded that the procedure adopted by CAT indicated “complete abdication of its jurisdiction” which was at the “cost of the basic right of the petitioner to receive fair treatment“..“The Tribunal should have then applied its mind whether the allegations against the petitioner are reasonably made out, or not. Nothing has been done by it, and very casually the Original Application has been rejected by proceeding on the basis that the inferences drawn by the respondents are the last word.”.The Court finally remarked,.“We are sorry to say that the Tribunal, at times, is not discharging its statutory obligation. This has been experienced by us in several cases.”.The Court also recorded that during the course of hearing, several members of the Bar who regularly appear before the CAT have, in a chorus, informed that the CAT is not recording the submissions of the parties or dealing with them while passing orders..The Court even considered directing the audio-video recording of the court proceedings of the Tribunal in view of “the extraordinary situation prevailing there”, but it refrained to do so..It nonetheless directed that a copy of the order be served upon the concerned Minister and the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi so that appropriate remedial steps could be considered to deal with the situation..A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the Registrar of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for onward communication to the Chairman and the members of the Tribunal..As far as the present case was concerned, the Court decided to deal with it themselves instead of remanding it to CAT..While directing the SSC to file a detailed counter-affidavit on record in the case, the Court re-notified the matter for August 20..The petitioner was represented by Advocates Anunaya Mehta and Akshay Deep Singhal..SSC was represented by Advocates Yashish Chandra and Yashaswi SK Chaudhry..[Read Order].Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.